Comparison of cognitive performance between patients with Parkinson’s disease and dystonia using an intraoperative recognition memory test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroscientific studies on the function of the basal ganglia often examine the behavioral performance of patients with movement disorders, such as Parkinson's disease (PD) and dystonia (DT), while simultaneously examining the underlying electrophysiological activity during deep brain stimulation surgery. Nevertheless, to date, there have been no studies comparing the cognitive performance of PD and DT patients during surgery. In this study, we assessed the memory function of PD and DT patients with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). We also tested their cognitive performance during the surgery using a continuous recognition memory test. The results of the MoCA and MMSE failed to reveal significant differences between the PD and DT patients. Additionally, no significant difference was detected by the intraoperative memory test between the PD and DT patients. The intraoperative memory test scores were highly correlated with the MMSE scores and MoCA scores. Our data suggest that DT patients perform similarly to PD patients in cognitive tests during surgery, and intraoperative memory tests can be used as a quick memory assessment tool during surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".