Cognitive Deterioration Rates in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease from Northeastern China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Cognitive impairment (CI) is common in Parkinson's disease (PD), and the cognitive deterioration rate (CDR) is heterogeneous among PD patients. However, very few studies have reported on the association of PD features and risk factors with rapid CDR. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is considered to be a sensitive and reliable approach to detect mild CI. In the present study, we sought to define and compare the cognitive profiles and clinical features of PD patients with slow or rapid CDRs, and then to identify the PD risk factors associated with rapid CDR. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of cognitive rate was performed using the MoCA in a cohort of 73 PD patients and 41 controls matched for age, sex and education level. RESULTS: The rapid CDR group was characterized by older age (58.8 years in slow CDR vs. 64.1 in rapid CDR; p = 0.02), later age at disease onset (52.7 vs. 61.7 years; p < 0.001), a faster deterioration rate of movement symptoms (UPDRS III increment of 12.8 vs. 5.9/year; p < 0.001), a higher rate in multiple-domain CI (38.9 vs. 10.8%), and generally lower MoCA subscores for the Clock Drawing Test, attention, verbal fluency and abstraction. According to the univariate logistic regression model, onset age, movement deterioration rate, multiple domains CI and executive function CI were risk factors for rapid CDR. However, only the movement deterioration rate (p = 0.01) and onset age (p = 0.05) remained independent predictors for rapid CDR according to the multivariate logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: The CI deterioration in a subset of PD patients appears to progress more rapidly. Identifying those PD patients may not only help to predict the development of PD dementia, but also facilitate therapeutic intervention at early disease stages.
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".