Prevalence and risk factors of hallucination in patients with Parkinson disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the prevalence and risk factors of hallucination in patients with Parkinson disease(PD)，and to analysis the relationship between hallucination and different types of PD. Methods We recruited 163 patients with PD from outpatient department in Beijing Tiantan Hospital. The subjects were divided into two groups， the hallucination group and the nonhallucination group. We assessed both the two groups respectively with UPDRS， HohenYahr rank， Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD)， Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index(PSQI)， Fagitue Severity Scale(FSS)， Parkinson fatigue scale(PFS)，MiniMental State Examination(MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Then we compared the difference between the two groups， statistical cluster analysis was used to study the relationship between heterogeneity and hallucination. Results In our 163 patients with PD， 20 of them (12.27%) had hallucination. The hallucination and nonhallucination groups had no difference in sex， age， age of onset， duration of illness， longterm complications and the scores of UPDRS， PSQI， FSS， PFS， MMSE and MoCA (P>0.05). The proportion of dyskinesia (35.0%) in hallucination group was significantly higher than that (9.1%) in the nonhallucination group. There were also significant differences in scores of postural stability， HY， UPDRS I， UPDRS II， HAMD and Levodopa Equivalents between the two groups. Logistic regression revealed that depression was the independent risk factor for hallucination 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".