An assessment of Movement Disorder Society Task Force diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cognitive impairment is one of the most disabling non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Mild cognitive impairment constitutes a major risk for the development of Parkinson's disease dementia in the course of the disease. A Movement Disorder Society Task Force proposed diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD-MCI), comprising two operational levels: Level I and Level II. The objective of our study was to test the accuracy of Level I versus Level II diagnostic criteria. METHODS: Eighty-six consecutive patients with Parkinson's disease were screened and 68 patients without dementia or depression were included in the study. We used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination and Addenbrooke's Cognitive Evaluation-R screening tools for Level I and an extensive neuropsychological battery for Level II assessment. We first diagnosed PD-MCI on the basis of Level II assessment and then calculated sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver-operator characteristics curve, comparing the performance of the three screening batteries. RESULTS: None of the three screening batteries proposed for Level I assessment provided satisfactory combined sensitivity and specificity for detecting PD-MCI, and their performance was similar. Using the Level II criteria, 29 patients (43%) were diagnosed as having PD-MCI. Lowest cut-off levels that provided at least 80% sensitivity were 24 for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 29 for the Mini-Mental State Examination and 87 for the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Evaluation-R. However, specificity levels were below 80% at these cut-off levels. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that Level I assessment alone using screening batteries is not sufficiently sensitive/specific to detect PD-MCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".