Co‐Occurrence of Apathy and Impulsivity in Progressive Supranuclear Palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Apathy and impulsivity are common consequences of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and can worsen its prognosis. They can co-exist in the same patients although their concomitant prevalence remains unclear. Their relationship to emotional lability is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the co-occurrence of apathy and impulsivity and their relationship to emotional lability in PSP. To characterize the demographic, clinical, and cognitive features of PSP patients with apathy and impulsivity. METHODS: In a retrospective study of a long-term clinical cohort, we assessed the prevalence of apathy, impulsivity, and emotional lability from clinical interviews, medical records, and contemporary carer questionnaires. One hundred fifty-four patients with a diagnosis of probable or possible PSP (according to the 2017 Movement Disorder Society criteria) were identified. Sixty-four of these patients had neuropathological confirmation of PSP. PSP patients with both apathy and impulsivity were compared in terms of demographic, clinical, and cognitive characteristics to PSP patients with either one or neither of these neuropsychiatric features. RESULTS: Apathy and impulsivity co-existed in two-thirds of people with PSP. A fifth displayed emotional lability in addition to apathy and impulsivity. Apathy and impulsivity were more commonly co-expressed than by chance. There was no single demographic, clinical or cognitive feature that distinguished between PSP patients with versus patients without apathy and impulsivity. CONCLUSIONS: The co-existence of apathy and impulsivity in PSP suggests that these neuropsychiatric features may share similar risk factors and etio-pathogenetic mechanisms. Apathy and impulsivity should be jointly assessed when planning symptomatic treatments for detrimental behavioral problems caused by PSP.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".