The HALP score differs among sporadic and familial Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder affecting quality of life. The onset of PD is thought to result from a multifaceted convergence of aging, genetic predisposition, and environmental exposure. The hemoglobin, albumin, lymphocyte, and platelet (HALP) score, a specific measure of inflammation and nutrition, has been identified in the literature. No study has determined whether there are differences in inflammation and nutrition between sporadic and familial forms of PD. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 1036 participants from Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI), including sporadic PD (sPD) and familial PD (fPD). Data on demographics (age, sex, race, years of education, BMI, age of onset), clinical characteristics (Hoehn and Yahr Scale, Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale(MDS-UPDRS) Part III Score, MDS-UPDRS Total Score, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Epworth Sleepiness Scale Score, Geriatric Depression Scale Score, Rapid Eye Movement(REM) Sleep Behavior Disorder Questionnaire Score, caudate nucleus uptake value on dopamine transporter scan, putamen uptake value on dopamine transporter scan, striatum uptake value on dopamine transporter scan), and laboratory parameters (hemoglobin, lymphocytes, monocytes, neutrophils, platelets, blood glucose, uric acid, total protein, urea nitrogen, and albumin) were collected from all participants. Logistic regression and smooth curve fitting analyses were used to support the research objective. RESULTS: A total of 1036 patients aged between 29.26 and 85.88 years were included in the analysis. A high HALP level was associated with an increased risk of fPD (per 10 units: OR = 1.18, 95 % CI = 1.07-1.29, P = 0.001), after adjustment for potential confounders. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, the risk of fPD occurring in Q3 was 1.8 times that in the Q1 group (OR = 1.8, 95 % CI = 1.16-2.78, P = 0.009). In addition, the results of the subgroup and sensitivity analysis were robust. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that HALP levels are associated with an increased risk of fPD, independent of confounders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".