Analysis of cognition disorder and its correlative factors in Parkinson disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the cognition disorder and its correlative factors in patients with idiopathic Parkinson disease(IPD).Methods The general data(age,age at onset,duration,education,past history,personal history and family history)of 127 IPD patients were collected.Unified Parkinson Disease Rating ScaleⅢ(UPDRSⅢ)and Hoehn-Yahr Scale were used to assess the severity of motor status.Unified Parkinson Disease Rating ScaleⅡ(UPDRSⅡ)and Activities of Daily Living Scale(ADL)were used to esti-mate daily life activities.Mini-Mental State Examination(MMSE)and Montreal Cognitive Assessment(MoCA)were used to assess mild cognition disorder.Fuld Object Memory Evaluation(FOM)was used to assess short-term recall.Rapid Verbal Retrieve Test(RVR)was used to assess long-term recall and language ability.Block Design Test(BD)was used to assess visuospatial ability.Digit Span Test(DS)was used to assess atten-tion and immediate recall.Hamilton Depression Rating Scale(HAMD)and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale(HAMA)were applied for assessment of depression and anxiety status.Results Patients with IPD commonly presented mild cognition disorder.The education and ADL score positively correlated with cognition disorder(r=0.510,P=0.000;r=0.452,P=0.000,respectively).Age,age at onset,UPDRSⅢscore,Hoehn-Yahr Scale,HAMD score and HAMA score negatively correlated with cognition disorder(r=-0.466,-0.418,-0.330,-0.431,-0.229,-0.222,P=0.000,0.000,0.000,0.000,0.000,0.000).There was no correlation between the duration and cognition disorder(r=0.012,P=0.893).Education and Hoehn-Yahr Scale were main factors which can significantly influence cognition disorder(R2=0.260,0.388).Conclusion Patients in early stageof idiopathic Parkinson disease may pre-sent mild cognition disorder,which may influence the daily life activities.MoCA is found to be a viable and useful method for screening patients with mild cognition disorder.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".