Cognitive processes that indirectly affect olfactory dysfunction in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Accurate early diagnosis of Parkinson's disease is hampered by its long prodromal period and the variable manifestations of its motor symptoms. While olfactory dysfunction can occur before motor-symptom onset and serve as a non-disease-specific diagnostic aid, its underlying causes are incompletely understood. Methods Correlation analyses, univariate density estimates, ANOVA and regression evaluated relationships between scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Hopkins Verbal Learning Test and those on the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test in 1280 Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative subjects placed into five diagnostic categories. Structural equation modeling identified cognitive measures having significant indirect effects on olfactory-function-test scores. Results Global cognition, verbal learning and memory, attention, delayed-recall, and visuospatial/executive function scores show weak-to-moderate, significant associations with olfactory-function-test scores. Associations are stronger in symptomatic than asymptomatic subjects having mutations in LRRK2 , GBA or SNCA . Score distributions are nonuniform across diagnostic categories. Linear regression found that all cognitive measures except attention predicted olfactory-function-test scores. Three structural equation models assessing indirect effects of verbal learning/memory with either global cognition, visuospatial/executive function, or delayed-recall had a good statistical fit to the data. Only verbal learning/memory scores significantly help explain olfactory-function-test scores in all symptomatic diagnostic categories (−0.56 < b < −0.23, 0.001 < P < .005). Visuospatial/executive-function test scores help explain olfactory-function-test scores in both genetic Parkinson's disease diagnostic categories (−0.25 < b < −0.17, 0.032 < P < .033). Conclusion Impaired verbal learning/memory and visuospatial/executive function contributes to lower performance on olfactory function tests in Parkinson's disease. As both of these domains impact decision-making, decision-making in turn may impact olfactory assessment in Parkinson's disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".