Everyday Function in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) impairment can begin in mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and is the core criteria for diagnosing dementia in both Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's (PD) diseases. The Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) has high discriminative power for dementia and MCI in older age populations, but is influenced by demographic factors. It is currently unclear whether the FAQ is suitable for assessing cognitive-associated IADL in non-demented PD patients, as motor disorders may affect ratings. OBJECTIVE: To compare IADL profiles in MCI patients with PD (PD-MCI) and AD (AD-MCI) and to verify the discriminative ability of the FAQ for MCI in patients with (PD-MCI) and without (AD-MCI) additional motor impairment. METHODS: Data of 42 patients each of PD-MCI, AD-MCI, PD cognitively normal (PD-CN), and healthy controls (HC), matched according to age, gender, education, and global cognitive impairment were analyzed. ANCOVA and binary regressions were used to examine the relationship between the FAQ scores and groups. FAQ cut-offs for PD-MCI (versus PD-NC) and AD-MCI (versus HC) were separately identified using receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: FAQ total score did not differentiate between MCI groups. PD-MCI subjects had greater difficulties with tax records and traveling while AD-MCI individuals were more impaired in managing finances and remembering appointments. Classification accuracy of the FAQ was good for diagnosing AD-MCI (69%, cut-off ≥1) compared to HC, and sufficient for differentiating PD-MCI (38.1%, cut-off ≥3) from PD-CN. CONCLUSION: The FAQ task profiles and classification accuracy differed between MCI related to PD and AD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".