MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400006001 · doi:10.1007/s00702-024-02797-9

The why and how of the SynNerGe criteria of Parkinson´s disease

2024· review· en· W4400006001 on OpenAlexaff
Günter U. Höglinger, Anthony E. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Transmission · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurodegenerationDiseaseParkinson's diseaseNeurologyClinical PracticeMedicineIdentification (biology)Precision medicineNeuroscienceBioinformaticsPsychologyPathologyBiologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In pursuit of early therapeutic interventions for Parkinson's disease, the proposed SynNeurGe classification system integrates α-synuclein pathology (S), neurodegeneration evidence (N), and pathogenic gene variants (G). This approach aims to address the disease's complexity and biological diversity. It suggests categorizing patients based on the presence or absence of α-synuclein pathology in tissues or cerebrospinal fluid, neurodegeneration indicators from specific imaging techniques, and identification of pathogenic gene variants associated with Parkinson's disease. The proposed system emphasizes the future need for precision medicine and aims to facilitate both basic and clinical research toward disease-modifying therapies. However, the authors stress that initial implementation should be confined to research settings, considering ethical implications and current limitations. Prospective validation of these criteria is deemed necessary to ensure their efficacy and ethical application in clinical practice.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueJournal of Neural TransmissionSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207