Frailty in Parkinson's disease and its association with early dementia: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Frailty is recognized as a clinical condition associated with increased vulnerability for developing negative health outcomes but has been little studied in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Here, we investigated the risk of frailty in de novo PD patients and its association with subsequent development of dementia. METHODS: We conducted a three-year longitudinal population-based study of 192 drug-naive newly diagnosed PD patients and 172 controls (No-PD) matched for age, sex, and education. Frailty was measured using the frailty index (FI). Logistic regression models, adjusting for potential confounders, were conducted to assess the association between frailty at the time of PD diagnosis and the subsequent odds for developing PD dementia during follow-up. RESULTS: The mean baseline FI score was higher in the PD (0.21 ± 0.10) than in the No-PD group (0.11 ± 0.07, p < 0.001). One-third of PD patients had high-FI (>0,25), compared to 5% in the no-PD group. Participants with PD had an increased risk to present frailty with an odds ratio (OR) of 6.68 (SE 2.70 IC 95% [3.15; 15.62], p-value <0.001) compared to the No-PD group. PD Participants with greater FI measured at baseline had increased odds of having dementia within three years of follow-up, after adjustment for age and sex (OR 2.91 SE 1.00 IC 95% [1.54; 5.99] p-value = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Frailty is common in people with newly diagnosed PD and associated with increased odds for subsequent development of dementia in a three-year follow-up. This study emphasizes the prognostic importance of frailty in PD from the earliest clinical stages.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".