MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399924084 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105201

The neurophysiological brain-fingerprint of Parkinson’s disease

2024· article· en· W4399924084 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jason da Silva Castanheira, Alex I. Wiesman, Justine Y Hansen, Bratislav Misic, Sylvain Baillet

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPfizer CanadaNational Institutes of HealthGovernment of CanadaMcGill UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPfizer
KeywordsNeurophysiologyNeuroscienceMedicineDiseaseFingerprint (computing)Parkinson's diseasePhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer sciencePathologyPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research in healthy young adults shows that characteristic patterns of brain activity define individual "brain-fingerprints" that are unique to each person. However, variability in these brain-fingerprints increases in individuals with neurological conditions, challenging the clinical relevance and potential impact of the approach. Our study shows that brain-fingerprints derived from neurophysiological brain activity are associated with pathophysiological and clinical traits of individual patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: We created brain-fingerprints from task-free brain activity recorded through magnetoencephalography in 79 PD patients and compared them with those from two independent samples of age-matched healthy controls (N = 424 total). We decomposed brain activity into arrhythmic and rhythmic components, defining distinct brain-fingerprints for each type from recording durations of up to 4 min and as short as 30 s. FINDINGS: The arrhythmic spectral components of cortical activity in patients with Parkinson's disease are more variable over short periods, challenging the definition of a reliable brain-fingerprint. However, by isolating the rhythmic components of cortical activity, we derived brain-fingerprints that distinguished between patients and healthy controls with about 90% accuracy. The most prominent cortical features of the resulting Parkinson's brain-fingerprint are mapped to polyrhythmic activity in unimodal sensorimotor regions. Leveraging these features, we also demonstrate that Parkinson's symptom laterality can be decoded directly from cortical neurophysiological activity. Furthermore, our study reveals that the cortical topography of the Parkinson's brain-fingerprint aligns with that of neurotransmitter systems affected by the disease's pathophysiology. INTERPRETATION: The increased moment-to-moment variability of arrhythmic brain-fingerprints challenges patient differentiation and explains previously published results. We outline patient-specific rhythmic brain signaling features that provide insights into both the neurophysiological signature and symptom laterality of Parkinson's disease. Thus, the proposed definition of a rhythmic brain-fingerprint of Parkinson's disease may contribute to novel, refined approaches to patient stratification. Symmetrically, we discuss how rhythmic brain-fingerprints may contribute to the improved identification and testing of therapeutic neurostimulation targets. FUNDING: Data collection and sharing for this project was provided by the Quebec Parkinson Network (QPN), the Pre-symptomatic Evaluation of Novel or Experimental Treatments for Alzheimer's Disease (PREVENT-AD; release 6.0) program, the Cambridge Centre for Aging Neuroscience (Cam-CAN), and the Open MEG Archives (OMEGA). The QPN is funded by a grant from Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS). PREVENT-AD was launched in 2011 as a $13.5 million, 7-year public-private partnership using funds provided by McGill University, the FRQS, an unrestricted research grant from Pfizer Canada, the Levesque Foundation, the Douglas Hospital Research Centre and Foundation, the Government of Canada, and the Canada Fund for Innovation. The Brainstorm project is supported by funding to SB from the NIH (R01-EB026299-05). Further funding to SB for this study included a Discovery grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada of Canada (436355-13), and the CIHR Canada research Chair in Neural Dynamics of Brain Systems (CRC-2017-00311).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207