Neurokognitív zavarok diagnosztizálási és kezelési lehetőségei Parkinson-kórban
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present review the recent developments in the definitions of neurocognitive disorders associated with Parkinson's disease are summarized including the possibilities for screening and treating. For a long time, the recognition of neurocognitive disorders associated in patients with Parkinson's disease was unsatisfactory due to the heterogeneity of definitions. The recently developed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) introduced the definitions of mild and major neurocognitive disorders instead of mild cognitive impairment and dementia. The new DSM-5 definitions are clinically well applicable; therefore, the validation of the most frequent screening tests (Mini-Mental State Examination; Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; Mattis Dementia Rating Scale) is warranted. Based on a Hungarian sample of 295 patients with Parkinson's disease, the cut-off scores having the best discriminative values are highly dependent on education years (Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination: 0-8 years of education: 82.5 points, 9-12 years of education: 83.5 points, and ≥13 years of education: 84.5 points; Mini-Mental State Examination: 26.5-27.5-28.5 points, Montreal Cognitive Assessment: 23.5-24.5-24.5 points, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale: 138.5-139.5-139.5 points, respectively).
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".