The pill questionnaire in a nondemented Parkinson's disease population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the Pill Questionnaire as a screen for mild cognitive impairment in nondemented Parkinson's disease patients. The relationship between ability to remember medications for Parkinson's disease in the Pill Questionnaire, mild cognitive impairment, and deficits on neuropsychological tests performed 2-3 weeks later blind to Pill Questionnaire results was assessed in movement disorders clinic patients. In 109 subjects, inaccurate medication reporting on the Pill Questionnaire was associated with lower scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease-Cognition and with deficits in memory, attention, executive function-inhibitory control, processing speed, visuospatial function, and language. Inaccurate medication reporting was also associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.4 (95% CI, 0.91-5.88; P = .06) for mild cognitive impairment, with a specificity of 80% and sensitivity of 41%. The Pill Questionnaire is neither sensitive nor specific enough to be used as the sole screening or diagnostic tool for mild cognitive impairment. However, inaccurate medication reporting is associated with deficits spanning many cognitive domains and should alert a clinician to a higher likelihood of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".