A 2-year follow-up study on cognitive function of patients with Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the change and its related risk factors of cognitive function of patients with Parkinson's disease(PD). Methods The cognitive function of 70 idiopathic PD patients were assessed with Montreal cognitive assessment scale (MoCA), and other PD related neuropsychological test batteries were used to evaluate their movement symptoms and non-movement symptoms such as depression and anxiety.Patients’ personal information were collected at the same time. They were reassessed after 2 years. Results As the disease progressed, the MoCA score of the PD patients significantly reduced from (24.79±4.07) points to (21.69±5.22) points (P<0.01). Seven subdomains of MoCA were attenuated, and 5 of them reached statistical significance. Motor subtype was a main predictor of the outcome of the cognitive impairment in PD. Scores of MoCA total score, naming, language, abstract and directional domains reduced more notably in patients with postural instability gait difficulty(PIGD) than those in the tremor dominant(TD) patients. Conclusion Cognitive function of PD patients decreases obviously after 2 years. The patients' cognitive impairment should be identified and intervened as soon as possible, especially the patients with PIGD. Key words: Parkinson's disease; Cognitive impairment; Follow-up; MoCA
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".