Additional file 1 of CSF total and oligomeric α-Synuclein along with TNF-α as risk biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease: a study in LRRK2 mutation carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Associations between CSF biomarkers. No correlation between CSF biomarkers were present in symptomatic LRRK2 mutation carriers group alone. Both sPD and symptomatic LRRK2 mutation carriers groups were combined as one PD group. Associations between CSF biomarkers were assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients. Data shown as r. Significance: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05 Aβ1–42, amyloid β1–42; Ctrl, Healthy controls; o-α-syn, oligomeric α-synuclein; pSer129-α-synuclein, phosphorylated α-synuclein protein at serine 129; pTau, tau phosphorylated at threonine 181; PD, Parkinson’s disease patients; tTau, total tau protein; and t-α-syn, total α-synuclein. Supplementary Table 2. Associations between CSF α-syn species and clinical parameters. Associations between CSF biomarkers were assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients. Data shown as r. Significance: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. Both sPD and symptomatic LRRK2 mutation carriers groups were combined as one PD group. Aβ1–42, amyloid β1–42; Ctrl, healthy controls; H&Y, Hoehn and Yahr scale; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NA, not applicable; o-α-syn, oligomeric α-synuclein; pSer129-α-synuclein, phosphorylated α-synuclein protein at serine 129; pTau, tau phosphorylated at threonine 181; sPD, sporadic PD; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-alpha; tTau, total tau protein; t-α-syn, total α-synuclein; UPDRS-III, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale. Supplementary Table 3. Discriminant loadings for each individual predictor. The correlation coefficient represents the relative contribution for each predictor to group separation. IL-16, interlukin-16; o-α-syn, α-synuclein oligomers; pS129-α-syn, phosphorylated Ser 129 α-synuclein; t-α-syn, total α-synuclein; TNF- α, tumor necrosis factor- α.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.825 | 0.086 |
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".