Predictors of dementia in Parkinson disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated an array of possible markers of early dementia in Parkinson disease. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive assessment of autonomic, sleep, psychiatric, visual, olfactory, and motor manifestations in 80 patients with Parkinson disease who were dementia-free at baseline. After 4.4 years' follow-up, patients were evaluated for dementia. Predictive variables were assessed using logistic regression adjusting for disease duration, follow-up duration, age, and sex. RESULTS: Of 80 patients, 27 (34%) developed dementia. Patients destined to develop dementia were older and more often male (odds ratio [OR] = 3.64, p = 0.023). Those with baseline mild cognitive impairment had increased dementia risk (OR = 22.5, p < 0.001). REM sleep behavior disorder at baseline dramatically increased dementia risk (OR = 49.7, p = 0.001); however, neither daytime sleepiness nor insomnia predicted dementia. Higher baseline blood pressure increased dementia risk (OR = 1.37 per 10 mm Hg, p = 0.032). Orthostatic blood pressure drop was strongly associated with dementia risk (OR = 1.84 per 10 mm Hg, p < 0.001); having a systolic drop of >10 mm Hg increased dementia odds 7-fold (OR = 7.3, p = 0.002). Abnormal color vision increased dementia risk (OR = 3.3, p = 0.014), but olfactory dysfunction did not. Among baseline motor variables, proportion of gait involvement (OR = 1.12, p = 0.023), falls (OR = 3.02, p = 0.042), and freezing (OR = 2.63, p = 0.013), as well as the Purdue Pegboard Test (OR = 0.67, p = 0.049) and alternate tap test (OR = 0.97, p = 0.033) predicted dementia. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction, REM sleep behavior disorder, color discrimination ability, and gait dysfunction strongly predict development of dementia in Parkinson disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".