Impaired Quality of Life and Need for Palliative Care in a German Cohort of Advanced Parkinson’s Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most frequent neurodegenerative disease of the elderly. Patients suffer from various motor and non-motor symptoms leading to reduced health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and an increased mortality. Their loss of autonomy due to dementia, psychosis, depression, motor impairments, falls, and swallowing deficits defines a phase when palliative care interventions might help to sustain or even improve quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the current status of palliative care implementation and quality of life in a local cohort of advanced PD patients in order to frame and improve future care. METHODS: 76 geriatric patients with advanced idiopathic PD meeting the inclusion criteria for palliative care interventions were clinically evaluated by neurological examination using Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, Barthel Index, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test, and a structured interview concerning palliative care implementation. RESULTS: HRQOL is severely reduced in our cohort of geriatric advanced PD patients. We found motor deficits, impairment of activities of daily living, depression, and cognitive decline as most relevant factors determining decreased HRQOL. Only 2.6% of our patients reported present implementation of palliative care. By contrast, 72% of the patients indicated an unmet need for palliative care. CONCLUSION: Quality of life is dramatically affected in advanced PD patients. However, we found palliative care to be implemented extremely rare in their treatment concept. Therefore, geriatric patients suffering from advanced PD should be enrolled for palliative care to provide adequate and holistic treatment which may improve or sustain their quality of life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".