Apathy, but Not Depression, Reflects Inefficient Cognitive Strategies in Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between apathy, depression and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD) is still controversial. The objective of this study is to investigate whether apathy and depression are associated with inefficient cognitive strategies in PD. METHODS: In this prospective clinical cohort study conducted in a university-based clinical and research movement disorders center we studied 48 PD patients. Based on clinical evaluation, they were classified in two groups: PD with apathy (PD-A group, n = 23) and PD without apathy (PD-NA group, n = 25). Patients received clinical and neuropsychological evaluations. The clinical evaluation included: Apathy Evaluation Scale-patient version, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 items, the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and the Hoehn and Yahr staging system; the neuropsychological evaluation explored speed information processing, attention, working memory, executive function, learning abilities and memory, which included several measures of recall (immediate free, short delay free, long delay free and cued, and total recall). FINDINGS: PD-A and PD-NA groups did not differ in age, disease duration, treatment, and motor condition, but differed in recall (p<0.001) and executive tasks (p<0.001). Immediate free recall had the highest predictive value for apathy (F = 10.94; p = 0.002). Depression and apathy had a weak correlation (Pearson index= 0.3; p<0.07), with three items of the depression scale correlating with apathy (Pearson index between .3 and.4; p<0.04). The depressed and non-depressed PD patients within the non-apathetic group did not differ. CONCLUSION: Apathy, but not depression, is associated with deficit in implementing efficient cognitive strategies. As the implementation of efficient strategies relies on the fronto-striatal circuit, we conclude that apathy, unlike depression, is an early expression of executive impairment in PD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".