Effects of Antiparkinson Medication on Cognition in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically review the effects of currently prescribed antiparkinson medication on cognition in patients with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease (PD) who were either cognitively intact or mildly impaired. METHODS: English- and French-language studies published between 1969 and 2017 were accessed via MedLine, PsychNET, EMBASE and EBSCO databases. Methodological quality (MQ) was evaluated with the quality assessment instrument of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review (scores from 0% to 44% indicate very low quality; scores from 45% to 64% indicate low quality; scores from 65% to 84% indicate medium quality; and scores from 85% to 100% indicate high quality). Hedges' g and Student's t-test were performed on all cognitive outcome measures reported. RESULTS: In total, 14 studies assessed the cognitive effects of levodopa (L-D), pramipexole (PRX), selegiline (SEL) and rasagiline (RAS) in mild-to-moderate non-demented PD patients. The MQ was overall low, with an average score of 49.1%. Results for L-D showed deleterious effects on a test of cognitive inhibition, as well as benefits on tests of attention/processing speed/working memory, executive functions and episodic memory. Pramipexole was associated with a worsening of episodic memory and impulse control. Results on SEL indicated a deterioration of global cognition over time and of concept formation. Rasagiline had some benefits on working memory and verbal fluency. CONCLUSION: Antiparkinson medications can have deleterious (L-D; PRX; SEL) and beneficial (L-D; RAS) effects on cognition. However, randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to better elucidate this issue.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".