No Significant Difference in Cognitive Decline and Mortality between Parkinson’s Disease Dementia and Dementia with Lewy Bodies: Naturalistic Longitudinal Data from the Swedish Dementia Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) are distinct disorders or two subtypes of the same entity, is not yet fully understood. There is a dearth of knowledge on differences in longitudinal clinical outcomes between DLB and PDD. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare longitudinal trend of cognitive decline, mortality, and their determinant factors between patients with DLB and PDD. METHODS: At baseline, we recruited 1110 DLB, and 764 PDD patients registered in the Swedish dementia registry (SveDem) during 2007-2015. Cognitive status was assessed at baseline and each follow-up visit by mini-mental state examination (MMSE). At least one follow-up MMSE was available for 411 (37.0%) DLB and 229 (30.0%) PDD patients. Rate of cognitive decline and mortality risk were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: After an average of 2-years, the rate of cognitive decline did not differ between DLB (1.1 MMSE unit/year) and PDD (1.2 MMSE unit/year) groups (p = 0.970). There was no significant difference in the median survival time between DLB (4.0 years) and PDD (4.1 years) groups (Log rank p = 0.614). Antipsychotic drug use in DLB and larger number of medications in PDD were the most important determinants of faster annual cognitive decline. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from real-world clinical practice demonstrated that the rate of cognitive decline and mortality do not differ significantly between DLB and PDD at least over 2 years, yet, various factors might determine clinical outcome in these two groups. It seems that DLB and PDD are probably similar synucleinopathies, with phenotypical variations in the order of manifestations rather than course of progression and clinical outcome.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".