Olfaction, Attention Performance, and Response Speed Variability in Early Parkinson’s Disease (P5.375)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in olfaction, attention, and response speed variability in early stage Parkinson’s disease. BACKGROUND: Impaired olfaction is a common early non-motor symptom of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and may be a sensitive, though non-specific indicator of PD risk. Cognitive impairment is another non-motor symptom commonly seen over the course of PD but sensitive early measures of cognitive changes in PD remain limited. Some have suggested that slowed performance on complex attention tests may be sensitive to early PD changes. METHOD: Patients with early stage PD (n=18; modified Hoehn & Yahr stage 1-2.5) and healthy controls (n=18) were compared. All PD patients were tested while taking their usual medications. Olfactory identification was examined via the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Tests (UPSIT). Each participant completed and the Attention Network Test-Interactions (ANT-I). This computer-administered test provided direct measurement of participants’ response speed and provided measures of the alerting, orienting, and executive control networks of attention. RESULTS: PD patients had poorer UPSIT scores compared to healthy controls (p=.004); 88.9[percnt] of the PD patients scored below the established UPSIT cutoff scores, compared to 0.0[percnt] of controls (p<.001). There were no significant differences between PD and control participants on the alerting, orienting or executive control attention networks (p>.05). PD patients also did not differ from controls in overall response speed on the ANT-I task (p>.05). However, PD patients demonstrated significantly greater response speed variability than controls (p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS; Early-stage treated PD patients did not demonstrate slowed overall response speed or reduced attention network efficiency but did demonstrate greater response speed variability on a complex attention task. PD patients also demonstrated poor olfactory identification. Together, changes in response speed variability and olfaction may be sensitive indicators of early-stage PD symptoms and may help identify those at risk for PD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".