Anxiety, Depression, and Apathy as Predictors of Cognitive Decline in Patients With Parkinson's Disease—A Three-Year Follow-Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Anxiety, depression, and apathy are the most common neuropsychiatric symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. They impair cognitive functioning and have a profound impact on quality of life. This follow-up study aims to investigate the predictive value of anxiety, depression, and apathy on the development of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) in PD patients. Methods Twenty-nine cognitively unimpaired PD patients (mean age 68.2 SD ± 7.12 years; 13 women) participated in this study. At Baseline (BL) levels of apathy (Apathy Evaluation Scale, AES), depression (Beck Depression Inventory, BDI-II), and anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory, BAI), were assessed. Cognitive status was reassessed three years later according to MCI/non-MCI status. For statistics, we used binary logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis to examine anxiety, apathy, and depression at BL as a predictor of MCI status three years later. Results Eight of the 29 patients developed MCI. Anxiety level at BL was found to predict MCI status at three-year follow-up ( OR = 1.20, CI = 1.02–1.41, p = 0.02), while depression ( OR = 1.16, CI = 0.93–1.47, p = 0.20) and apathy ( OR = 1.06, CI = 0.92–1.23, p = 0.40) did not predict MCI status. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of BAI for discriminating PD-non-MCI from PD-MCI was 0.79 ( CI = 0.61–0.98). The optimal classification threshold yielded a sensitivity of 75.0 % and a specificity of 76.2 %. Neither apathy nor depression at BL discriminated between PD-non-MCI patients from PD-MCI three years later. Conclusions This study shows an association between anxiety and the development of MCI in PD patients, although the association between apathy, depression, and MCI did not reach a significant level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".