Prevalence of Primitive Reflexes and Parkinsonian Signs in Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Primitive reflexes and parkinsonian signs are used by clinicians to differentiate among dementias. We reviewed our clinical sample to determine whether primitive reflexes were more prevalent in frontally-based dementias and whether parkinsonian signs were more common in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) than in other types of dementia. DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed charts from 204 patients with dementia who presented for consultation at Baycrest's Ross Memory Clinic between April, 2003, to December, 2007. RESULTS: A greater proportion of subjects with DLB and dementia of the Alzheimer type with cardiovascular disease had primitive reflexes than subjects with frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Primitive reflexes were not positively predictive of FTD or vascular dementia (VaD). Dementia with Lewy bodies subjects were more likely to have parkinsonian signs than the other dementias, and bradykinesia and rigidity were positively predictive of FTD. The palmomental reflex was the most common primitive reflex in the sample, and cogwheeling was the most common parkinsonian sign. There was no significant difference between early- and late-stage groups in presence of primitive reflexes or parkinsonian signs. CONCLUSIONS: Primitive reflexes appear not to be clinically discriminative of frontally-based dementias such as FTD and VaD.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".