Cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease: a report from a multidisciplinary symposium on unmet needs and future directions to maintain cognitive health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with Parkinson's disease (PD) and their care partners frequently report cognitive decline as one of their greatest concerns. Mild cognitive impairment affects approximately 20-50% of people with PD, and longitudinal studies reveal dementia in up to 80% of PD. Through the Parkinson's Disease Foundation Community Choice Research Award Program, the PD community identified maintaining cognitive function as one of their major unmet needs. In response, a working group of experts across multiple disciplines was organized to evaluate the unmet needs, current challenges, and future opportunities related to cognitive impairment in PD. Specific conference goals included defining the current state in the field and gaps regarding cognitive issues in PD from patient, care partner, and healthcare professional viewpoints; discussing non-pharmacological interventions to help maintain cognitive function; forming recommendations for what people with PD can do at all disease stages to maintain cognitive health; and proposing ideas for how healthcare professionals can approach cognitive changes in PD. This paper summarizes the discussions of the conference, first by addressing what is currently known about cognitive dysfunction in PD and discussing several non-pharmacological interventions that are often suggested to people with PD. Second, based on the conference discussions, we provide considerations for people with PD for maintaining cognitive health and for healthcare professionals and care partners when working with people with PD experiencing cognitive impairment. Furthermore, we highlight key issues and knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in order to advance research in cognition in PD and improve clinical care.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".