Sex differences in brain atrophy and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease patients with and without probable rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) contributes to increase cognitive impairment and brain atrophy in Parkinson's disease (PD), but the impact of sex is unclear. We aimed to investigate sex differences in cognition and brain atrophy in PD patients with and without probable RBD (pRBD). METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging and cognition data were obtained for 274 participants from the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative database: 79 PD with pRBD (PD-pRBD; male/female, 54/25), 126 PD without pRBD (PD-non pRBD; male/female, 73/53), and 69 healthy controls (male/female, 40/29). FreeSurfer was used to obtain volumetric and cortical thickness data. RESULTS: Males showed greater global cortical and subcortical gray matter atrophy than females in the PD-pRBD group. Significant group-by-sex interactions were found in the pallidum. Structures showing a within-group sex effect in the deep gray matter differed, with significant volume reductions for males in one structure in in PD-non pRBD (brainstem), and three in PD-pRBD (caudate, pallidum and brainstem). Significant group-by-sex interactions were found in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Symbol Digits Modalities Test (SDMT). Males performed worse than females in MoCA, phonemic fluency and SDMT in the PD-pRBD group. CONCLUSION: Male sex is related to increased cognitive impairment and subcortical atrophy in de novo PD-pRBD. Accordingly, we suggest that sex differences are relevant and should be considered in future clinical and translational research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".