MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399601744 · doi:10.53846/goediss-10491

Analyse von Tränenflüssigkeit als Biomarkerquelle beim idiopathischen Parkinsonsyndrom

2024· dissertation· de· W4399601744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hannah Linda Jane Paul

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerGelsolinMedicineCerebrospinal fluidNeurodegenerationDiseaseWestern blotParkinson's diseaseInternal medicinePathologyBiologyBiochemistryActin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The idiopathic Parkinson´s syndrome is one the second most common neurodegenerative diseases in the world. The diagnosis is to this day a mainly clinical diagnosis. The accuracy of the diagnosis is depending on the expertise of the person performing the examination. Different studies already analyzed a large amount of different potential biomarker sources, such as cerebrospinal fluid, blood and brain homogenate. Another promising candidate as a potential biomarker is tear fluid. Tear fluid is considered an easily accessible body fluid which contains a vast number of proteins which could be influenced by neurodegenerative diseases and is already used as a biomarker source of several ophthalmological disorders. In this study we analyzed the proteins Apolipoprotein A1 (Apo A1), Gelsolin, Profilin 1, Glypican 4 and Apolipoprotein E (Apo E) in the tear fluid of Parkinson´s disease (PD) patients and controls. Those proteins were chosen because of their link to neurodegeneration and because of a previously done study by Boeger et al. which described the proteins Apo A1, Gelsolin and Profilin 1 as significantly regulated in the tear fluid of PD patients compared to controls. Methods: Tear fluid samples of 36 PD patients and 36 age matched and gender matched controls were collected via Schirmer tear test strips. Those samples were analyzed via western blot. Clinical data such as age, gender, ophthalmological diseases und Unified Parkinson`s disease rating scale 3, Hoehn & Yahr-stadium, Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCa) and Parkinson´s disease non-motor symptoms were correlated with the results of the western blots. Results: There was no significant regulation between the PD and control cohorts for any of the proteins examined. However, a breakdown by gender into male and female revealed a significant regulation between the Glypican 4 values of the men and women in the PD cohort. The glypican 4 values of the men were significantly higher. In line with this, there was a non-significant trend for increased Apo A1 values in the men of the PD cohort compared to the values of the women of the PD cohort. When the clinical characteristics were correlated with the proteins examined, significant and positive correlations were found between the proteins Apo A1, Gelsolin, Profilin 1, Glypican 4 and the age of the PD cohort. In addition, there were significant correlations between the proteins in the PD cohort. Profilin 1 was the only one of the proteins examined to show a significant correlation with the protein content of the samples in both the PD cohort and the control cohort. There was also a significant, negative correlation between the MoCA score and the Apo A1 values of the PD cohort. Conclusion: In summary, tear fluid presented itself as an easily accessible material for the search for a biomarker. There was a trend for reduced tear secretion in PD patients and a significantly reduced protein content in the tear fluid of the PD cohort. Gender and age could potentially influence the occurrence of individual proteins in tears and should be taken into account in future searches for biomarkers.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOcular Surface and Contact Lens→French-language works237,207→