Rehabilitation training improves subjective cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease patients: A prospective analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The predictive value of subjective cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease (PD-SCD) remains controversial. However, there is growing evidence that individuals with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are associated with Alzheimer's disease pathology and are a higher risk for cognitive decline. The aim of the present study is to characterize PD-SCD and its progression, assess the effects of rehabilitation training programs on cognitive function in PD patients.Methods: Forty-two PD patients were evaluated with a neuropsychological protocol, and classified depending on the presence (PD-SCD+, n=22) or absence of SCD (PD-SCD-,n=20). After a mean follow-up of 3.0 years (2.0-4.0 years), we repeated the cognitive assessments with the same subjects. The rehabilitation training for individuals with PD for six months after the re-assessment.Results: The clinical characteristics and overall cognitive performance of the 2 groups did not differ from baseline. During the follow-up assessment, patients with PD-SCD exhibited a more significant annual decline in Chinese-Beijing version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Test (BJ-MoCA) and semantic fluency than patients without PD-SCD. Stepwise logistic regression analysis showed that the MMSE Scores(P=0.000), HAMD Scores (P=0.008), male (P=0.026), and the presence of SCD (P=0.022) were risk factors for language and related functions domain. There are significant improvements detected in 2 groups after rehabilitation training in terms of BJ-MoCA. Pairwise comparisons showed that language at post-intervention in the PD-SCD+ groups were significantly higher than at pre-intervention in the PD-SCD-.Conclusion: With the progression of the disease, the cognitive performance of patients with PD-SCD+ was worse than PD-SCD-. Meanwhile, the present data indicate that semantic fluency might be a key component to evaluate the cognitive subset of PD. Rehabilitation training is a viable intervention for PD that can improve several non-motor domains, produced larger improvements in cognition.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".