Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Nuclear Imaging of ParkinsonianDisorders: Where do we go from here?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinsonian disorders are a heterogeneous group of incurable neurodegenerative diseases that significantly reduce quality of life and constitute a substantial economic burden. Nuclear imaging (NI) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have played and continue to play a key role in research aimed at understanding and monitoring these disorders. MRI is cheaper, more accessible, nonirradiating, and better at measuring biological structures and hemodynamics than NI. NI, on the other hand, can track molecular processes, which may be crucial for the development of efficient diseasemodifying therapies. Given the strengths and weaknesses of NI and MRI, how can they best be applied to Parkinsonism research going forward? This review aims to examine the effectiveness of NI and MRI in three areas of Parkinsonism research (differential diagnosis, prodromal disease identification, and disease monitoring) to highlight where they can be most impactful. Based on the available literature, MRI can assist with differential diagnosis, prodromal disease identification, and disease monitoring as well as NI. However, more work is needed, to confirm the value of MRI for monitoring prodromal disease and predicting phenoconversion. Although NI can complement or be a substitute for MRI in all the areas covered in this review, we believe that its most meaningful impact will emerge once reliable Parkinsonian proteinopathy tracers become available. Future work in tracer development and high-field imaging will continue to influence the landscape for NI and MRI.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".