Preliminary results of the cohort study of cognitive impairment associated with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment (CI) is frequent in Parkinson’s disease (PD). CI patients have particular features. These are preliminary data of a cohort study of Moldovan patients with incident Parkinson’s disease. Material and methods: 65 out of 111 consecutive PD patients (mean age 64.87 ± 7.69 y.o.; disease duration 50.21 ± 38.61 mo.; 48 women (43.2%), 63 men (56.8%)) underwent Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. Cognitive status graded as: (1) normal and (2) impaired cognition. Results: There were similar: ages (65.79 ± 7.13 vs 62.17 ± 12.21 y.o.), onset ages (61.44 ± 7.61 vs 57.00 ± 12.95 years), disease duration (49.63 ± 36.78 vs 66.00 ± 26.48) months), levodopa (574.58 ± 129 vs 249.55) and agonists doses (5.19 ± 3.02 vs 1.05 ± 0.05) and Beck scores (8.13 ± 6.21 vs 7.4 ± 3.85), in groups. CI was present in 59 (90.8%) patients; more frequent in patients with cardiovascular risk factors (91.7%, p> 0.05), symmetrical Parkinsonism (93.2%, p> 0.05), and in first disease symptom bradykinesia patients (93.8%, p> 0.05). Upper / Lower Asymmetry Index were lower in CI patients, all lower type patients (p> 0.05) having CI. MoCA scores correlated with Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale in ON fase (UPDRSon), (r = -0.320, p <0.022), and red flags number (r = -0.590, p < 0.006). Conclusions: Cognitive impairment is more expectable in akinetic, symmetric and lower type Parkinsonism, also in patients with cardiovascular risk factors, with probable PD, and a more motor impairment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".