IS COGNITIVE DECLINE SIMILAR AMONG PARKINSON’S DISEASE MOTOR SUB-TYPES? A PROSPECTIVE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is traditionally classified into the postural instability gait difficulty (PIGD) and the tremor dominant (TD) sub-types. Mild cognitive deficits are increasingly recognized as a common non-motor symptom in PD, however, cognitive differences among the two motor sub-types have not been well-described. We investigated whether changes over time in cognitive functions differ across the PIGD and TD sub-types. 57 non-demented patients with PD who were previously classified into PIGD (n=30) and TD (n=27) were followed for an average of 60 months. At baseline and follow-up, participants underwent cognitive testing (on medications): the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and a computerized neuropsychological battery (NeuroTrax™) that generated index scores of executive function (EF), attention, memory, and a global cognitive score. At baseline, the groups were similar with respect to age (PIGD: 69.31 ± 7.6 yrs; TD: 70.5 ± 12 yrs; p=0.652), disease duration (PIGD: 10.6 ± 3.8 yrs, TD: 10.1 ± 2.9; p=0.628), and all cognitive functions (p>0.29). At follow-up, the global cognitive score declined by 9.5% in the PIGD group (from: 94.5 ± 11.7 to 85.3 ± 13.6, p<0.001). This decline was significantly larger (p=0.03) than the 4.5% decrease observed in the TD group (from: 96.3 ± 10.4 to 91.93 ± 14.3, p=0.047). Similar group differences (p=0.006) were observed in the decline of EF, where a significant GroupXTime interaction effect was also seen (p=0.008). MoCA, memory and attention indices declined similarly in the two sub-types. The present findings demonstrate that PIGD patients experience greater cognitive decline, compared to TD patients, in specific domains of cognitive function, suggesting that treatment should be tailored to the motor sub-type.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".