MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404647256 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.20.24317429

Cortical effects of dopamine replacement account for clinical response variability in Parkinson’s disease

2024· preprint· en· W4404647256 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex I. Wiesman, Mikkel C. Vinding, Panagiota Tsitsi, Per Svenningsson, Josefine Waldthaler, Daniel Lundqvist

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseStiftelsen för Strategisk Forskning
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseDopamineNeuroscienceDiseaseMedicinePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individual variability in clinical response to dopaminergic replacement therapy (DRT) is a key barrier to efficacious treatment for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). A better understanding of the neurobiological sources of such inter-individual differences is necessary to inform future clinical interventions and motivate translational research. One potential source of this variability is an unintended secondary activation of extra-nigrostriatal dopamine systems by DRT, particularly in the neocortex. In this study, we use magnetoencephalography data collected from patients with PD before and after DRT to map their individual cortical neurophysiological responses to dopaminergic pharmacotherapy. By combining these DRT response maps with normative atlases of cortical dopamine receptor and transporter densities, we link the variable enhancement of rhythmic beta activity by DRT to dopamine-rich cortical regions. Importantly, patients who exhibited a larger dopaminergic beta cortical enhancement showed a smaller clinical improvement from DRT, indicating a potential source of individual variability in medication response for patients with PD. We conclude that these findings inform our understanding of the dopaminergic basis of neurophysiological variability often seen in patients with PD, and indicate that our methodological approach may be useful for data-driven contextualization of medication effects on cortical neurophysiology in future research and clinical applications.

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)0.007
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→