Is either anosmia or constipation associated with cognitive dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the association of anosmia or constipation with cognitive dysfunction and disease severity in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with PD (less than 5 years) without a clinical diagnosis of dementia were included from February 2017 to August 2018. The subjects were further divided into subgroups based on whether anosmia occurred and the grade of constipation. The severity of PD motor symptoms was rated using the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), and cognitive functions were evaluated by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Statistical analyses including t-tests, chi-square tests, multiple linear regression, and binary logistic regression were used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: A total of 107 newly diagnosed PD patients were included in this study. The MoCA score was significantly lower in the anosmia group (p < 0.001). Constipation was associated with impaired olfaction in a post-hoc test. The correlation coefficient between MoCA and UPSIT score was 0.41 (p < 0.001). Total anosmia and age were associated with cognitive dysfunction (MoCA < 26) (odds ratio, 2.63, p = 0.003; 1.10, p < 0.001, respectively). The anosmia group had a higher MDS-UPDRS part 3 score with β coefficient of 7.30 (p = 0.02). Furthermore, grade 3 constipation was associated with a higher MDS-UPDRS total score with β coefficient of 14.88 (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Anosmia but not constipation was associated with cognitive impairment in PD patients. Nevertheless, severe constipation was associated with impaired olfaction and PD disease severity. We suggest that the propagation of α-synuclein from the olfactory route is distinct from the enteric nervous system, but the intercommunication between these two routes is complex.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".