Presence or absence of cognitive complaints in Parkinson’s disease: mood disorder or anosognosia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We intended to evaluate whether non-demented Parkinsons's disease (PD) patients, with or without subjective cognitive complaint, demonstrate differences between them and in comparison to controls concerning cognitive performance and mood. We evaluated 77 subjects between 30 and 70 years, divided as follows: PD without cognitive complaints (n = 31), PD with cognitive complaints (n = 21) and controls (n = 25). We applied the following tests: SCOPA-Cog, Trail Making Test-B, Phonemic Fluency, Clock Drawing Test, Boston Naming Test, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Beck Depression Inventory. PD without complaints presented lower total score on Scales for outcome of Parkinson's disease-cognition as compared to controls (p = 0.048). PD with complaints group showed higher scores on HADS (p = 0.011). PD without complaints group showed poorer cognitive performance compared to controls, but was similar to the PD with complaints group. Moreover, this group was different from the PD without complaints and control groups concerning mood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".