Differentiating cognitive or motor dimensions associated with the perception of fall-related self-efficacy in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Parkinson's disease (PD), concurrent declines in cognitive and motor domain function can severely limit an individual's ability to conduct daily tasks. Current diagnostic methods, however, lack precision in differentiating domain-specific contributions of cognitive or motor impairments based on a patients' clinical manifestation. Fear of falling (FOF) is a common clinical manifestation among the elderly, in which both cognitive and motor impairments can lead to significant barriers to a patients' physical and social activities. The present study evaluated whether a set of analytical and machine-learning approaches could be used to help delineate boundary conditions and separate cognitive and motor contributions to a patient's own perception of self-efficacy and FOF. Cognitive and motor clinical scores, in conjunction with FOF, were collected from 57 Parkinson's patients during a multi-center rehabilitation intervention trial. Statistical methodology was used to extract a subset of uncorrelated cognitive and motor components associated with cognitive and motor predictors, which were then used to independently identify and visualize cognitive and motor dimensions associated with FOF. We found that a central cognitive process, extracted from tests of executive, attentional, and visuoperceptive function, was a unique and significant independent cognitive predictor of FOF in PD. In addition, we provide evidence that the approaches described here may be used to computationally discern specific types of FOF based on separable cognitive or motor models. Our results are consistent with a contemporary model that the deterioration of a central cognitive mechanism that modulates self-efficacy also plays a critical role in FOF in PD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".