MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4366696381 · doi:10.54097/ijbls.v2i2.6144

Serum levels of p-tau181 in patients with Parkinson’s disease

2023· article· en· W4366696381 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhanglin Tian, Long Bo, Mi Xiong, Yuhan Dong, Youdong Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology and Life Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineRating scaleMontreal Cognitive AssessmentOutpatient clinicCentral nervous system diseaseDementiaPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease. Evidence has shown that phosphorylated tau-181 (p-tau181) is involved in the pathological process of PD. The goal of this study was to investigate the changes of serum phosphorylated Microtubule-associated protein tau at threonine-181 in patients with Parkinson's disease and it's correlation with disease severity, cognitive impairment and prognosis. Methods: A total of 40 patients with primary Parkinson's disease who were hospitalized or outpatient in the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from July 2021 to February 2022 were selected as the study subjects. Patients with secondary Parkinson's disease, Parkinson's syndrome, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, craniocerebral surgery or trauma, severe systemic or infectious diseases, local or systemic infectious diseases, motor neurone disease or other central nervous system diseases were excluded. In addition, 35 healthy subjects with similar age and gender matching were selected as the healthy control group. Age, gender, course of disease, Hoehn-Yahr (H-Y) scale, Unified Parkinson's Disease Scale (UPDRS), and MoCA score were recorded in the Parkinson's disease group. According to the H-Y scale, PD group was divided into PD patients in the advanced stage (H-Y≤2.5, n=16) and PD patients in the advanced stage (H-Y>2.5, n=24). Six months after blood sample collection, we assessed the H-Y rating and UPDRS score in the Parkinson's group again by telephone follow-up. Those with decreased or unchanged H-Y rating or total UPDRS score were divided into good prognosis group (n=25), and those with increased H-Y rating or total UPDRS score were divided into poor prognosis group (n=14). The serum p-tau181 concentration of all subjects was detected and compared by double-antibody sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the correlation between serum p-tau181 level and UPDRS score, MoCA score and prognosis of Parkinson's disease patients was analyzed. Results: Compared with HC, serum p-tau181 concentration in PD patients were higher, but not statistically significant (1.01[0.28-2.63]vs 0.53[0.04-3.72]ug/mL, P=0.55, P>0.05). There was no significant difference in p-tau181 concentration between PD patients in early stage and PD patients in advanced stage (P=0.80 P>0.05), and no significant difference in p-tau181 level between PD patients with cognitive impairment, PD patients with normal cognition and HC patients (P=0.63, p>0.05). P-tau181 was not significantly correlated with disease duration (r=-0.14, P=0.37, P>0.05), UPDRS score (r=0.02, P=0.89, P>0.05), and MoCA score (r= 0.16, P=0.32, P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in serum P-tau181 expression between good prognosis group and poor prognosis group (P=0.74, P > 0.05). Conclusions: Serum expression of p-tau181 increased in PD patients, but no statistical difference was observed, and no clear correlation was found between p-tau181 and disease severity and cognitive impairment. Serum p-tau181 level in PD patients has no significant prognostic significance.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Biology and Life Sciences→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→