Adult-Onset <i>PLA2G6</i>-Associated Neurodegeneration (PLAN): A Clinical, Imaging and Genetic Profile Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: -associated neurodegeneration (PLAN) has a diverse phenotypic presentation. OBJECTIVE: Detailed description of the clinical, imaging and genetic profile of adult-onset PLAN; comparison of the Indian cohort with Asian, Middle East and European cohorts; genotype-phenotype correlations; and determination of ethnic phenotypic and genotypic differences of adult-onset PLAN. METHODS: Report of two patients of adult-onset PLAN and review of reported cases of adult-onset PLAN since 2015 from Indian, Asian, Middle East and European cohorts. RESULTS: There were 12 cases in the Indian cohort, 45 in the Asian cohort, 10 in the Middle East cohort and 17 in European cohort. Patients in the Indian and Asian cohorts had a later age at onset as compared to the Middle East and European cohorts. The median duration of disease was similar among all cohorts. Dystonia, myoclonus and gaze palsy were common in the Indian cohort; parkinsonism and tremor in the Asian cohort; parkinsonism, tremor, spasticity and cognitive impairment in the Middle East cohort; and parkinsonism and behavioural disturbances in the European cohort. Early-onset parkinsonism was common in all cohorts. Mineralisation on MRI was less frequent in the Asian and Middle East cohorts. Cerebral/cerebellar atrophy was less frequent in the Asian cohort. The homozygous missense variant (c.2222G > A,p.R741Q) was common in the Indian and Middle East cohorts, whereas the homozygous/compound heterozygous variant (c.991G > T, p.D331Y) was the most common variant in the Asian cohort. Milder clinical and neuroimaging phenotypes were noted with c.991G > T (p.D331Y) variant and a relatively severe phenotype in c.2222G > A,p.R741Q variant. CONCLUSION: Adult-onset PLAN has a variable phenotype. We found ethnic phenotypic and imaging differences among the cohorts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".