MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399105668 · doi:10.1007/s13167-024-00368-2

Unraveling progression subtypes in people with Huntington’s disease

2024· article· en· W4399105668 on OpenAlexaff
Tamara Raschka, Zexin Li, Heiko Gaßner, Zacharias Kohl, Jelena Jukic, Franz Marxreiter, Holger Fröhlich

Bibliographic record

VenueThe EPMA Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
FundersCHDI Foundation
KeywordsDiseaseHuntington's diseaseCognitionTrinucleotide repeat expansionMovement disordersMedicineCluster (spacecraft)PsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineGeneticsGeneAlleleBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Huntington's disease (HD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease caused by a CAG trinucleotide expansion in the huntingtin gene. The length of the CAG repeat is inversely correlated with disease onset. HD is characterized by hyperkinetic movement disorder, psychiatric symptoms, and cognitive deficits, which greatly impact patient's quality of life. Despite this clear genetic course, high variability of HD patients' symptoms can be observed. Current clinical diagnosis of HD solely relies on the presence of motor signs, disregarding the other important aspects of the disease. By incorporating a broader approach that encompasses motor as well as non-motor aspects of HD, predictive, preventive, and personalized (3P) medicine can enhance diagnostic accuracy and improve patient care. Methods: Multisymptom disease trajectories of HD patients collected from the Enroll-HD study were first aligned on a common disease timescale to account for heterogeneity in disease symptom onset and diagnosis. Following this, the aligned disease trajectories were clustered using the previously published Variational Deep Embedding with Recurrence (VaDER) algorithm and resulting progression subtypes were clinically characterized. Lastly, an AI/ML model was learned to predict the progression subtype from only first visit data or with data from additional follow-up visits. Results: = 411) showing a dramatically more progressive disease trajectory. Clinical characterization of the two subtypes correlates with CAG repeat length, as well as several neurobehavioral, psychiatric, and cognitive scores. In fact, cognitive impairment was found to be the major difference between the two subtypes. Additionally, a prognostic model shows the ability to predict HD subtypes from patients' first visit only. Conclusion: In summary, this study aims towards the paradigm shift from reactive to preventive and personalized medicine by showing that non-motor symptoms are of vital importance for predicting and categorizing each patients' disease progression pattern, as cognitive decline is oftentimes more reflective of HD progression than its motor aspects. Considering these aspects while counseling and therapy definition will personalize each individuals' treatment. The ability to provide patients with an objective assessment of their disease progression and thus a perspective for their life with HD is the key to improving their quality of life. By conducting additional analysis on biological data from both subtypes, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of these subtypes and uncover the underlying biological factors of the disease. This greatly aligns with the goal of shifting towards 3P medicine. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13167-024-00368-2.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe EPMA JournalSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207