THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND DEPRESSION IN OLDER ADULTS WITH PARKINSON’S DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to understand the associations between physical activity (PA) and mood in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease (PD) progression. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between PA and depression in newly diagnosed, untreated individuals with PD. We analyzed data from the Parkinson Progression Markers Initiative and examined depression (Geriatric Depression Scale; GDS) in 260 de novo individuals with PD. Participants with a GDS score ≤5 were considered “not depressed” and those with a GDS score >5 were considered “depressed.” We also examined scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and self-reported levels of PA (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly). Physical activity including light, moderate and strenuous PA, were tallied to create summary scores for frequency (days/week) and duration (hours/day). Thirty-four percent of study participants reported being depressed at baseline. Those who were depressed had fewer years of education (15 vs. 16 years, p=0.02) but did not differ significantly by age, sex or cognitive function compared to those with no depression. Study participants engaged in PA for an average of 1.3 ± 0.4 days/week for 2.2 ± 0.4 hours. There were no significant differences in PA levels between those who were depressed or not depressed. Depressive symptoms were high in this cohort of patients with newly diagnosed, untreated Parkinson’s disease. However, we did not observe an association between physical activity and depressive symptoms cross-sectionally. Future studies should examine the longitudinal association between physical activity and depressive symptoms in this cohort.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".