Relationships between freezing of gait severity and cognitive deficits in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Evidence supports an association between freezing of gait (FOG) severity and cognitive functioning in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD); however, results are varied. Here we sought to explore the differences in cognitive measurements via multivariable statistical models in patients with PD. Methods PD patients with (PDFOG+, n=41) and without FOG (PDFOG–, n=39) and control healthy subjects (n=41) participated in the study. The NIH toolbox cognition battery, Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), and interval timing task were used to test cognitive domains. Measurements were compared between groups using multivariable models and adjusting for covariates. Correlation analyses, linear regression, and mediation models were applied to examine relationships among disease duration and severity, FOG severity, and cognitive functioning. Results Significant differences were observed between controls and PD patients for all cognitive domains. PDFOG+ and PDFOG– exhibited differences in the dimensional change card sort (DCCS) test, interval timing task, and MoCA scores. After adjusting for covariates in two different models, PDFOG+ and PDFOG– differed in both MoCA and DCCS scores. In addition, significant relationships between FOG severity and cognitive function (MoCA, DCCS, and interval timing) were also found. Regression models suggest that FOG severity may be a predictor of cognitive impairment, and mediation models show the effects of cognitive impairment on the relationship between disease severity and FOG severity. Conclusions Overall, this study provides insight into the relationship between cognitive and FOG severity in patients with PD, which could aid in the development of therapeutic interventions to manage both.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".