[Correlations between olfactory and cognitive functions in early stage Parkinson's disease].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the general characteristics of olfactory and cognitive functions in early Parkinson's disease (PD) and examine their correlations. METHODS: The olfactory functions were assessed for 63 PD patients and 55 age and gender-matched normal subjects using T&T olfactory assessment. The scales of mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) were employed. The olfactory and cognitive parameters and their relationship were analyzed. There were five different odors in T&T testing liquid and each odor had 5 concentration gradients. The level had an assigned value of 1 to 5 and number 3 represented the standard threshold of olfactory recognition. The mean value of five odors was overall olfactory detection or cognition threshold. RESULTS: (1) The olfactory detection and recognition thresholds were 4.0 ± 1.3/4.8 ± 0.9 in PD group versus 2.5 ± 0.9/2.9 ± 0.9 in normal controls. The scores of MoCA and MMSE were lower in PD group than those in controls (23.7 ± 3.0 vs 25.9 ± 2.0, t = 4.727, P = 0.000; 27.8 ± 1.9 vs 28.9 ± 0.9, t = 4.036, P = 0.000). (2) Linear correlation analysis showed that olfactory recognition threshold was correlated negatively with MoCA scores. The olfactory detection and recognition thresholds were correlated negatively with the score of visual-spatial perception and executive capability (r = -0.365, -0.403, P < 0.05). The olfactory recognition threshold was correlated negatively with the score of delayed memory (r = -0.299, P < 0.05). And this phenomenon was absent in controls. CONCLUSION: Early PD patients have olfactory dysfunction and cognitive impairment. And these two non-motor symptoms are negatively correlated.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".