Prevalence and Cumulative Incidence of Caregiver-Reported Aggression in Advanced Parkinson Disease and Related Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the point prevalence and cumulative incidence of caregiver-reported aggressive behaviors among people living with advanced Parkinson disease and related disorders (PDRDs) and secondarily examine variables associated with aggression. METHODS: Caregivers from a clinical trial of outpatient palliative care for PDRD were surveyed about patient aggression at baseline and every 3 months over 12 months. Baseline responses were used for point prevalence. Cumulative incidence was calculated using responses from caregivers with no reported baseline aggression and available data at all other time points. Measures of disease severity, quality of life, mood, and caregiver burden were included in correlation and relative risk models, adjusting for age, sex, and diagnosis. RESULTS: = 0.20). Age, sex, cognitive impairment, and dementia were not associated with aggression. No variables were associated with cumulative sexual aggression. CONCLUSION: There was a high prevalence and incidence of aggression in our PDRD cohort. This is an understudied issue in PDRD, and our findings highlight the need for increased awareness among neurologists. Providers should consider assessing for aggression when discussing neuropsychiatric symptoms or screening for caregiver burden. Future research should examine the relationship between aggression and patient and caregiver health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Clinical trial registration number: NCT02533921.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".