MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133342125 · doi:10.1093/brain/awq225

Cognition and olfaction in Parkinson’s disease

2010· letter· en· W2133342125 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald B. Postuma, Jean‐François Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCanadian Sleep & Circadian NetworkHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlfactionParkinson's diseasePsychologyNeuropsychologyCognitionAudiologyEpisodic memoryDiseaseDementiaNeuroscienceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, We read with interest the recent paper in Brain by Bohnen et al. (2010), which suggested correlation between cognitive function and olfactory loss in Parkinson’s disease (Bohnen et al., 2010). They found that among 58 patients with Parkinson’s disease, those with poor episodic verbal memory had more impaired olfaction, as tested by the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Additionally, there was borderline correlation between olfaction and non-verbal memory and Mini-Mental State Examination. We are conducting an ongoing study of non-motor manifestations of Parkinson’s disease, which includes a full neuropsychological examination and olfactory testing (Gagnon et al., 2009; Postuma et al., 2009). This allows us to quickly assess if these findings can be replicated. We have examined a group of 71 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Mean age was 66.3 years and 50 (71%) were males. Disease duration was 5.0 ± 3.4 years, Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part 3 was 22.6 ± 10.9, Mini-Mental State Examination was 28.3 ± 1.8 and mean UPSIT was 17.9 ± 6.2. Neuropsychological examination was divided into four summary composite components: (i) attention/executive functions (Trail Making Test part B, Stroop 3 minus Stroop 1 time, semantic verbal fluency, phonetic verbal fluency); (ii) episodic verbal memory (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning test—sum of trials 1–5, List B, immediate recall and delayed recall); (iii) non-verbal memory (Rey-O figure immediate and delayed recall); and (iv) visuoconstructional abilities (Copy of the Rey-O figure). The 40-item UPSIT was performed according to standard criteria. Regression analysis was used to adjust for age and disease duration (sex P = 0.19 and education P = 0.61) were not associated with UPSIT in the regression model (R with all four variables = 0.515, with age and duration only = 0.495), and so were not included in the model). Acetylcholinesterase PET scanning was not performed in this cohort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.152 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207