Rapid Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. This study sought to establish the discriminant validity of a rapid cognitive screen, that is, the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke-Canadian Stroke Network (NINDS-CSN) 5-minute protocol, and compare its discriminant validity to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) in detecting cognitive impairment (CI) in PD patients. Methods. One hundred and one PD patients were recruited from a movement disorders clinic in Singapore and they received the NINDS-CSN 5-minute protocol, MoCA, and MMSE. No cognitive impairment (NCI) was defined as Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) = 0 and CI was defined as CDR ≥ 0.5. Results. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of NINDS-CSN 5-minute protocol was statistically equivalent to MoCA and larger than MMSE (0.86 versus 0.90, P = 0.07; 0.86 versus 0.76, P = 0.03). The sensitivity of NINDS-CSN 5-minute protocol (<9) was statistically equivalent to MoCA (<22) (0.77 versus 0.85, P = 0.13) and superior to MMSE (<24) (0.77 versus 0.52, P < 0.01) in detecting CI, while the specificity of NINDS-CSN 5-minute protocol (<9) was statistically equivalent to MoCA (<22) and MMSE (<24) (0.78 versus 0.88, P = 0.34). Conclusion. The NINDS-CSN 5-minute protocol is time expeditious while remaining statistically equivalent to MoCA and superior to MMSE and therefore is suitable for rapid cognitive screening of CI in PD patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".