MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073687249

Evolution of prodromal clinical markers of Parkinson disease in a GBA mutation-positive cohort.

2015· article· en· W7073687249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlucocerebrosidaseREM sleep behavior disorderProdromeDiseaseDepression (economics)Rapid eye movement sleepCohortEtiologyDementiaMovement disorders
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance. Numerically, the most important genetic risk factor for the development of Parkinson disease (PD) is the presence of a glucocerebrosidase gene (GBA) mutation.
\n
\nObjective. To evaluate longitudinally and clinically a GBA mutation–positive cohort and the evolution of the prodromal features of PD.
\n
\nDesign, Setting, and Participants. Participants in a study of the etiology and prodrome of PD were reevaluated in this clinic-based 2-year follow-up report. Patients with type 1 Gaucher disease (GD) and heterozygous GBA mutation carriers were recruited in 2010 from the Lysosomal Storage Disorder Unit at the Royal Free Hospital, London, England. Thirty patients who previously received a diagnosis of type 1 GD, 28 heterozygous GBA mutation carriers, and 26 genetically unrelated controls were included. Exclusion criteria included a diagnosis of PD or dementia for both the patients with GD and the GBA mutation carriers and any existing neurological disease for the controls.
\n
\nMain Outcomes and Measures. Assessment was performed for clinical markers using standardized scales for hyposmia, rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder, depression, autonomic dysfunction, cognitive function, and parkinsonian motor signs (using the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor subscale [UPDRS part III]).
\n
\nResults. Over 2 years, depression scores were significantly worse for heterozygous carriers (mean baseline, 0.65; mean follow-up, 2.88; P = .01), rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder scores were significantly worse for patients with GD (mean baseline, 0.93; mean follow-up, 2.93; P < .001) and heterozygotes (mean baseline, 0.10; mean follow-up, 2.30; P < .001), and UPDRS part III scores were significantly worse for patients with GD (mean baseline, 4.29; mean follow-up, 7.82; P < .001) and heterozygotes (mean baseline, 1.97; mean follow-up, 4.50; P < .001). For controls, there was a small but significant deterioration in the UPDRS part II (activities of daily living) score (mean baseline, 0.00; mean follow-up, 0.58; P = .006). At 2 years, olfactory and cognitive assessment scores were lower in patients with GD and heterozygotes compared with controls, but they did not differ significantly from baseline. When the results from the patients with GD and the heterozygotes were combined, a significant deterioration from baseline was observed, as reflected in the Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behaviour Disorder Questionnaire (mean baseline, 0.51; mean follow-up, 2.63; P < .001), Beck Depression Inventory (mean baseline, 1.72; mean follow-up, 4.44; P = .002), and UPDRS part II (mean baseline, 0.88; mean follow-up, 2.01; P < .001) and part III scores (mean baseline, 3.09; mean follow-up, 6.10; P < .001) (all P < .01), and at 2 years, significant differences in University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and UPDRS part II and part III scores were observed between patients with GD/heterozygotes and controls (all P < .05).
\n
\nConclusions and Relevance. This study indicates that, as a group, GBA mutation–positive individuals show a deterioration in clinical markers consistent with the prodrome of PD. Within this group of individual, 10% appear to be evolving at a more rapid rate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCL Discovery (University College London)Same topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207