MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323036321 · doi:10.1093/brain/awad064

Impaired dopamine release in Parkinson’s disease

2023· review· en· W4323036321 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kaitlyn M. L. Cramb, Dayne Beccano-Kelly, Stephanie J. Cragg, Richard Wade‐Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersClarendon FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMedical Research CouncilParkinson's UKMichael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research
KeywordsDopamineParkinson's diseaseNeuroscienceMedicineDopaminergicDiseasePsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson's disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease and yet the early pathophysiological events of the condition and sequences of dysfunction remain unclear. The loss of dopaminergic neurons and reduced levels of striatal dopamine are descriptions used interchangeably as underlying the motor deficits in Parkinson's disease. However, decades of research suggest that dopamine release deficits in Parkinson's disease do not occur only after cell death, but that there is dysfunction or dysregulation of axonal dopamine release before cell loss. Here we review the evidence for dopamine release deficits prior to neurodegeneration in Parkinson's disease, drawn from a large and emerging range of Parkinson's disease models, and the mechanisms by which these release deficits occur. The evidence indicates that impaired dopamine release can result from disruption to a diverse range of Parkinson's disease-associated genetic and molecular disturbances, and can be considered as a potential pathophysiological hallmark of Parkinson's disease.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations191
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207