37 Postural Instability in Parkinson’s Disease: The Association of Cognitive Impairment and Non-Motor Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative condition after Alzheimer’s. Historically considered as a movement disorder, the multitude of non-motor symptoms (NMS) are now a recognised cause of significant disease burden. This study aimed to explore the relationship between postural instability and NMS in PD. Methodology We recruited individuals (n=100) in South East Queensland with a pre-existing diagnosis of idiopathic PD into this prospective observational study. Motor assessment was performed via the Movement Disorders Society-revised Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). Assessment of postural instability was based on the Hoehn & Yahr Scale (H&Y) with a score of ≥3 considered indicative of postural instability. NMS were assessed via the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS). Further neuropsychiatric and affective assessment was evaluated with the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15), Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results Cohort demographics comprised of 62% male and 38% female with a mean age of 69.1 years (SD 7.35) and mean H&Y 2.34 (SD 0.59). Sixty four participants were H&Y 1 & 2 whilst 36 participants were H&Y ≥3. Participants with postural instability were significantly older (p = 0.033) and had lower MoCA scores (p=0.039). Among the MoCA domains, only the Visuospatial / Executive domain was associated with postural instability (p= 0.005). Among the NMSS domains, only the sexual function domain was significantly associated with the latter group (p=0.029). GDS scores tended to be higher in the postural instability group (p=0.054) but there was no significance in major depressive disorder (p=0.436). Conclusion Postural instability in PD is significantly associated with age and cognitive impairment, in-particular frontal lobe function. The association of sexual dysfunction is supportive of the notion that disorders in dopaminergic and non-dopaminergic systems underpin the pathophysiology substrate of postural instability.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".