MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306152071 · doi:10.3390/ijms232012211

A Comprehensive Assessment of Qualitative and Quantitative Prodromal Parkinsonian Features in Carriers of Gaucher Disease—Identifying Those at the Greatest Risk

2022· article· en· W4306152071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michal Becker‐Cohen, Ari Zimran, Tama Dinur, Maayan Tiomkin, Claudia Cozma, Arndt Rolfs, David Arkadir, Elena Shulman, Orly Manor, Ora Paltiel, Gilad Yahalom, Daniela Berg, Shoshana Revel‐Vilk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLysosomal Storage Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicineMedicineFamily historyDiseaseCohortRating scaleParkinson's diseasePercentileGlucocerebrosidasePsychologyCognitive impairment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carriers of GBA1 gene variants have a significant risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD). A cohort study of GBA carriers between 40−75 years of age was initiated to study the presence of prodromal PD features. Participants underwent non-invasive tests to assess different domains of PD. Ninety-eight unrelated GBA carriers were enrolled (43 males) at a median age (range) of 51 (40−74) years; 71 carried the N370S variant (c.1226A > G) and 25 had a positive family history of PD. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most frequently abnormal (23.7%, 95% CI 15.7−33.4%), followed by the ultrasound hyperechogenicity (22%, 95% CI 14−32%), Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRS-III) (17.2%, 95% CI 10.2−26.4%), smell assessment (12.4%, 95% CI 6.6−20.6%) and abnormalities in sleep questionnaires (11%, 95% CI 5.7−19.4%). Significant correlations were found between tests from different domains. To define the risk for PD, we assessed the bottom 10th percentile of each prodromal test, defining this level as “abnormal”. Then we calculated the percentage of “abnormal” tests for each subject; the median (range) was 4.55 (0−43.5%). Twenty-two subjects had more than 15% “abnormal” tests. The limitations of the study included ascertainment bias of individuals with GBA-related PD in relatives, some incomplete data due to technical issues, and a lack of well-characterized normal value ranges in some tests. We plan to enroll additional participants and conduct longitudinal follow-up assessments to build a model for identifying individuals at risk for PD and investigate interventions aiming to delay the onset or perhaps to prevent full-blown PD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicLysosomal Storage Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207