A-75 Effects of Rivastigmine on Neurocognitive Deficits in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Cognitive impairments are commonly seen in Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, identification and tracking of cognitive deficits are not always part of treatment plans. Cholinergic treatment with rivastigmine has demonstrated beneficial effects on cognition and gait stability in PD-dementia, but less evidence exists in PD-mild cognitive impairment. We investigated the cognitive effects of rivastigmine treatment in a 3-month open-label pilot study. Method 31 participants with PD and mild–moderate cognitive impairment (24 male; mean age = 71.7; mean years-of-education = 17.2; mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score = 21.7) completed pre-testing in a single-site, non-randomized study at the University of Maryland Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center. A subset of 12 patients returned for follow-up after 12 weeks of rivastigmine treatment. A physical examination, the MoCA, and a computerized cognitive measure (NeuroTrax) were completed at each session. It was hypothesized that rivastigmine would benefit cognition, particularly executive functioning. Results Rivastigmine benefited global cognitive functioning as measured by both the MoCA (t(10) = −2.5, p < 0.05; M(Time 1) = 22.6(2.2), M(Time 2) = 24.9(3.9)) and NeuroTrax (t(11) = −3.0, p < 0.05; M(Time 1) = 88.7(13.6), M(Time 2) = 95.5(11.6)), though no domain-specific changes were evident. Relationships among the two measures were also examined. Moderate correlations were found between MoCA total scores and NeuroTrax measures including Global Cognitive Scale (r = 0.40, p < 0.05), Visuospatial Functioning (r = 0.39, p < 0.05), Executive Functioning (r = 0.50, p < 0.005), and Motor Response (speed/planning; r = 0.51, p < 0.005). Conclusions Although small sample size and practice effects must be considered, results suggest potential global cognitive benefit of rivastigmine for patients with PD experiencing mild–moderate cognitive deficits. Treatment planning for all PD patients should include periodic cognitive screenings and consideration of treatment options.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".