The correlation between possible RBD and cognitive function in Parkinson's disease patients in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Cognitive impairment is an important symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD) and seriously affects patients’ quality of life and prognosis. However, its cause is still uncertain. In about one‐third of patients, PD is associated with rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD), which is an independent risk factor for PD‐associated dementia; but whether or not it relates to the cognitive function of patients with nondemented PD is still controversial. Methods The data from 89 enrolled PD patients were retrospectively analyzed. The RBD Questionnaire Hong‐Kong (RBD‐HK) was used to diagnose possible RBD (pRBD). There are 46 patients with possible RBD (the PD‐pRBD) and 43 without (the PD‐npRBD). PD disease severity, neuropsychological function, overall cognitive function, and various cognitive functions were assessed. Results There were significant between‐group differences in scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE), Digit Symbol Test (DST), Trail Making Test‐A (TMT‐A)‐Time, TMT‐Trail Making Test‐B (TMT‐B)‐Time, Stroop Color‐word Test, Clock Drawing Test (CDT), Boston Naming Test (BNT), Verbal Fluency Test (fruit), etc. (P < 0.05). Interpretation Patients in the PD‐pRBD group had more cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".