Poor attentional function predicts cognitive decline in patients with non-demented Parkinson's disease independent of motor phenotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postural instability gait difficulty (PIGD) motor phenotype in Parkinson's disease (PD) is associated with a faster rate of cognitive decline than in tremor dominant cases and may be a risk factor for incident dementia. People with PD display attentional deficits; however, it is not clear whether attentional deficits in patients with non-demented PD are associated with (i) PIGD phenotype and/or (ii) subsequent cognitive decline. AIMS: (i) To examine rates of cognitive decline (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Cambridge Cognitive Examination (CAMCOG)) over 3 years in subjects with non-demented PD aged over 65 years, (ii) using Cognitive Drug Research computerised assessment test battery, determine the rate of change in power of attention (PoA) scores over time (sum of mean choice reaction time, simple reaction time and digit vigilance reaction time scores), (iii) determine whether the PIGD phenotype is associated with changes in PoA and (iv) establish whether baseline PoA is associated with subsequent cognitive decline. RESULTS: 14 subjects (38%) were classified as PIGD motor phenotype at baseline. Cognitive decline was greater in PIGD compared with non-PIGD subjects (p < or = 0.02). PIGD phenotype was not associated with baseline PoA score although it was associated with subsequent worsening in PoA (mean PoA increase/year: non-PIGD subjects 11.4 ms; PIGD subjects 244.0 ms; p = 0.01). Higher baseline PoA scores were associated with greater cognitive decline (MMSE, p = 0.03; CAMCOG, p = 0.05) independent of PIGD status. CONCLUSION: PIGD phenotype and attention deficits are independently associated with a greater rate of cognitive decline in patients with non-demented PD. We propose that subtle attentional deficits in patients with non-demented PD predict subsequent 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".