The association between frailty and Parkinson’s disease in the ReSPOnD trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Frailty and Parkinson’s disease (PD) are both highly prevalent in older people, but few studies have studied frailty in people with Parkinson’s. Identifying frailty in this population is vital, to target new interventions to those who would most benefit. Methods: Data were collected as part of the double-blind randomised controlled rivastigmine to stabilise gait ReSPonD trial in 130 people with Hoehn and Yahr 2-3, idiopathic PD who had fallen in the year prior to enrolment. Individuals were assessed at baseline and followed up at 8 months, including determination of frailty status. Results: 120 patients attended for follow-up. At follow-up, the mean (SD) age was 70.2 years (8.0) and MDS-UPDRS total score 91.5 (29.1). Median disease duration was 9.2 years (IQR 4.6 to 13.1), Geriatric Depression Score 4 (IQR 2 to 6). Using the Fried frailty criteria, 31 (26%) were frail and 70 (58%) pre-frail. In univariable analysis, being female, higher depression score and MDS-UPDRS score was associated with greater frailty. Using ordinal regression, in the multivariable model, being female (Odds ratio [OR] 3.10, 95%CI 1.53 to 6.26, p=0.002), higher total MDS-UPDRS score (OR 2.02, 95%CI 1.42 to 2.87, p<0.0001) and higher depression (OR 1.47, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.06, p=0.03) were associated with higher number of frailty markers. Conclusion: There was a high prevalence (84%) of pre-frail and frail individuals in patients participating in this RCT. Future research should determine the optimum tool to assess frailty in this at-risk population and delineate the association between Parkinson’s, frailty and health outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".