Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the prevalence, clinical traits and correlates of apathy in patients with Parkinson’s disease（PD）. Methods Seventy-seven cases of PD patients and 40 health controls were recuited in the present study. Apathy was assessed using Lille Apathy Rating Scale（LARS）and related factors, such as motor function, cognition, depression, age, sex, education level, disease duration, levodopa equivalent doses (LED) and use of antipsychotic drugs were also evaluated. Four kinds of scales, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Hoehn-Yahr staging, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) were employed to evaluate the motor function, cogniton and depression, respectively. Results The prevalence of apathy and depression in the 77 PD patients were 49.4%(38/77) and 46.8%(36/77), respectively. Of the 77 PD patients, 11 cases had apathy without depression (14.3%）; 9 cases had depression without apathy（11.7%） and 27 cases had apathy combined with depression（35.1%）. Among the PD patients with apathy, the cognitive type is the most common one, accounting for 86.8％(33/38). There were significant statistical differences in education level，UPDRS-Ⅱ/Ⅲ scores, Hoehn-Yahr staging, MoCA and HAMD scores between apathy(n=38) and no-apathy(n=39) PD patients（t= 2.309, -3.144,-4.000, -3.217, 2.649,-3.909, all P<0.05）. According to the unifactoral Logistic regression analysis of apathy correlates, UPDRS-Ⅱ/Ⅲ scores, Hoehn-Yahr staging and HAMD scores were the risk factors for apathy while education level and MoCA were the protective factors for apathy. In the multiple Logistic regression analysis, HAMD scores,UPDRS-Ⅱ scores and education level were included. Conclusions The prevalence of apathy in PD patients was significantly higher than healthy controls. Apathy could be present without depression in PD patients, and was associated with education level, motor dysfunction degree, cognitive impairment and depression severity. Key words: Parkinson disease; Apathy; Depression; Prevalence
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".