Prodromal Cognitive Deficits and the Risk of Subsequent Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in identifying individuals who are in the prodromal phase of Parkinson's disease (PD), as these individuals are potentially suitable for inclusion in intervention trials to prevent clinically manifest PD. However, it is less clear whether-and to what extent-cognitive deficits are present in prodromal PD. METHODS: A systematic query was conducted through PubMed and Embase for prospective observational cohort studies that (a) assessed cognitive performance in individuals free of manifest PD at baseline and (b) subsequently followed up participants for incident PD. We grouped the results by cognitive domain, and for domains that had been reported in at least three separate studies, we performed random-effects, inverse variance meta-analyses based on summary statistics. RESULTS: We identified nine articles suitable for inclusion, with a total of 215 patients with phenoconversion and 13,524 individuals remaining disease-free at follow-up. The studies were highly heterogeneous in study design, study population, and cognitive test batteries. Studies that included only cognitive screening measures such as MMSE or MoCA reported no association between worse cognitive performance and onset of manifest PD (combined odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.77). By contrast, studies that used extensive cognitive testing batteries found that global cognitive deficits were associated with an increased risk of manifest PD. In domain-specific analyses, there was evidence for an association between worse executive functioning (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.10-1.92), but not memory (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.85-1.70) or attention (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.23-4.26), and clinically manifest PD. CONCLUSION: Although some caution due to high heterogeneity among published studies is warranted, the available evidence suggests that global and executive cognitive deficits are prodromal features of PD. Collaborative prospective studies with extensive cognitive test batteries are required to shed light on domain-specific deficits, temporal relations, and subgroup differences in prodromal cognitive deficits in PD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".