Comparison of cognitive functions and behavioral and psychological symptoms in patients with general paresis of insane and Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the cognitive impairment and behavioral and psychological symptoms between patients with general paresis of insane (GPI) and those with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Methods Fifty patients with GPI and sixty-one patients with AD from Guangzhou Brain Hospital were recruited in this case-control study. The severity of dementia was determined by the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR). Cognitive functions and behavioral and psychological symptoms were evaluated by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Results (1) Cognitive assessments: There were statistically significant differences in different groups of patients classified by the CDR both in GPI and AD patients.In addition, with the increasing of the CDR degree, scores of MMSE and MoCA tended to drop down, but the scores of ADAS-cog tended to go up conversely. Comparing GPI with AD, the scores of MMSE in mild GPI groups were significantly higher than mild AD group (GPI: 20.63±5.87, AD: 14.32±5.05, F=7.697, P=0.008), while the scores of ADAS-cog memory factor in mild GPI groups were significantly lower than mild AD group (GPI: 13.66 (8.33), AD: 23.00 (10.50), Z=-3.205, P=0.001). (2) Assessments of behavioral and psychological symptoms: In GPI patients, the scores of NPI were increased with the degree of CDR; On the contrary, the scores stayed consistent relatively in patients with AD. In addition, comparing GPI with AD, patients with moderate degree were prominent in euphoria and eating disorders in GPI, rather than AD. What’s more, severe GPI patients had significantly higher score in hallucination, delusion, depression and the total of NPI than severe AD patients. Conclusion Patients with GPI and AD show different characteristics in behavioral and psychological symptoms, which could help clinicians better understand GPI and AD. Key words: Neurosyphilis; Alzheimer disease; Cognition disorders; Neurobehavioral manifestations; Diagnosis, differential
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".