Different Associated Factors of Subjective Cognitive Complaints in Patients With Early- and Late-Onset Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs), which are associated with a higher risk of cognitive decline, are widespread in the patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). The previous studies have reported inconsistent factors related to SCCs in the patients with late-onset PD (LOPD), and there is limited information on SCCs in the patients with early-onset PD (EOPD). Objective: We aimed to investigate the factors associated with SCCs in the drug-naïve patients with EOPD and LOPD without cognitive impairment. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 332 drug-naïve patients with PD, among whom 134 were EOPD and 198 were LOPD. Motor and non-motor symptoms, such as global objective cognitive status, depression, anxiety, apathy, fatigue, sleep, rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder, orthostatic hypotension, and excessive daytime sleepiness, were assessed. Results: Twenty-five (18.66%) patients with EOPD and 49 (24.74%) patients with LOPD reported SCCs. A multivariate binary logistic regression analysis revealed that older age at onset [odds ratio ( OR ) = 1.24, P = 0.002], higher apathy score ( OR = 1.13, P = 0.003), and lower scores in the visuospatial/executive abilities ( OR = 0.25, P < 0.001) and memory ( OR = 0.50, P = 0.024) domains of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment were associated with a higher risk of SCCs in the EOPD group. Higher apathy ( OR = 1.06, P = 0.011) and anxiety ( OR = 1.14, P < 0.001) scores were associated with SCCs in the LOPD group. Conclusion: Subjective cognitive complaints are only associated with mood disorders in patients with LOPD. In addition, SCCs may reflect subthreshold cognitive impairment in the patients with EOPD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".