Phenotypic Differences among Recently Diagnosed Drug-Naïve Patients with Parkinson’s Disease with or without SNCA Polymorphisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some studies show that patients with mutations in the SNCA gene, which codifies for the alpha-synuclein protein, show a particular phenotype. The effects of SNCA Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNPs) in recently diagnosed, drug-naïve patients with PD have been less explored. Therefore, we set out to explore the differences in the clinical characteristics of recently diagnosed drug-naïve sporadic PD patients with or without SNCA rs3910105 or rs356181 SNPs. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of PD in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) database entered the study. We excluded those with missing data, dementia, psychiatric conditions, a diagnosis change over the first five years from the initial PD diagnosis, or with a familial history of PD. Subjects were evaluated with the MDS-Unified PD Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), DAT imaging, the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the SCOPA-AUT for autonomic function, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the RBD Questionnaire, and the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). We included 308 PD patients fulfilling all inclusion and exclusion criteria. A logistic regression analysis and Machine-Learning models did not disclose any difference between patients either with or without the SNCA rs3910105 SNP or with or without the SNCA rs3910105 polymorphism. Our results suggest that the SNCA polymorphisms rs3910105 and rs356181 have no impact on the phenotype of idiopathic, sporadic, recently diagnosed, drug naïve PD patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".