MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111043921 · doi:10.1002/alz.044834

The North American Prodromal Synucleinopathy (NAPS) Consortium: Baseline neuropsychological findings in 136 participants

2020· article· en· W3111043921 on OpenAlexaff
Julie A. Fields, Bradley F. Boeve, Leah K. Forsberg, Erik K. St. Louis, Ruth Kraft, Kevin M. Nelson, Paul Timm, Luke Teigen, Alon Y. Avidan, Adreanne Rivera, Ronald B. Postuma, Jean‐François Gagnon, Amélie Pelletier, Michael J. Howell, Carlos H. Schenck, Josh De Kam, Kelly J. Ryberg, Rebekah L. S. Summers, Donald L. Bliwise, Daniel E. Huddleston, Cathy Wood‐Siverio, Aleksandar Videnović, Matthew Stauder, Samantha Hersh, Susan R. Criswell, Jennifer McLeland, Yo‐El S. Ju

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyDementia with Lewy bodiesDementiaEpisodic memoryPsychologyAudiologyCognitionClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background It is important to determine the natural history of individuals with RBD and generate clinical and neuropsychological data for planning disease‐modifying trials to delay or prevent phenoconversion of RBD to an overt synucleinopathy such as dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson’s disease, or multiple system atrophy. Our objective is to present initial neuropsychological data on 136 participants with REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) without an overt synucleinopathy who are in the North American Prodromal Synucleinopathy (NAPS; R34AG056639) Consortium. Method As part of the NAPS protocol (www.naps‐rbd.org), investigators at 10 centers in North America are enrolling a target of 360 participants with RBD. A comprehensive clinical battery and a set of neuropsychological measures (using the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set version 3 or UDS3) are performed at each visit. Result Participants were 82% male, ranging in age from 35‐85 (Mean=65.9, SD=15.9) and education from 8‐20 years (Mean=15.9, SD=3.1). Only 17 participants (13%) were impairment‐free across all tests administered. The proportions of participants with impaired scores were tabulated as follows (< ‐1.5 SD after adjustment for age, sex, and education): global cognition – 17%; attention/executive functioning – 10‐20% across measures; language – 14‐24% across measures; visuospatial – 16%; and episodic learning/memory – 18‐25% across measures. Of all participants, 79 (58%) showed impairments < ‐2 SD. Moreover, 53% of those with cognitive impairment involved impact in 2 domains, an additional 20% in 3 domains, and another 4% was impaired in all domains. The combination of attention/executive and language was most often observed. Conclusion Collection of a comprehensive set of clinical and neuropsychological measures is feasible and tolerated in RBD patients. Using the UDS3 neuropsychological test battery, impairment in one or more measures was present in 87% of participants, and 58% showed impairments greater than 2 SD below the mean in the absence of a clinical diagnosis of dementia. Impairments in > 2 domains was common, most frequently involving attention/executive and language. Future longitudinal assessments will be required to determine the predictive utility of neuropsychological performance for phenoconversion of RBD to an overt synucleinopathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207