Cognitive Performance is Associated with Altered Cerebral Hemodynamics Assessed by Transcranial Ultrasound in Parkinson’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Cognitive impairment (CI) is a common but debilitating non-motor symptom in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Although cerebrovascular functions are related to cognitive performance in healthy individuals, such a relation in PD remains elusive. This study aims to assess the association between cerebrovascular function and cognitive performance in PD individuals. Patients and Methods: Two-hundred-and-one PD individuals were retrospectively included. They were subsequently divided into two groups: PD with normal cognition (PD-NC) and PD with CI (PD-CI). Cerebral hemodynamic characteristics of the middle cerebral arteries were assessed by transcranial ultrasound. The association between scores in each cognitive domain and cerebral hemodynamic parameters was further analyzed using regression analyses. Additionally, a binary logistic regression model with backward stepwise procedure was applied to build the model for discriminating CI in PD individuals. An independent dataset of additional 46 PD individuals was used further. Results: The PD-CI group showed a relatively lower end-diastolic blood flow velocity (EDV, p < 0.05) and a higher resistive index (RI, p < 0.05) compared to the PD-NC group. RI showed significant associations with the memory item score of Montreal Cognitive Assessment ( p < 0.05). A model combining clinical and hemodynamic variables was established with optimal efficiency (area under the curve, AUC = 0.651). Further replication of the model in an independent dataset yielded a great consistency (AUC = 0.704). Conclusion: In our study, cerebrovascular functions were significantly associated with the cognitive performance in PD individuals, especially with the memory task. The established model was effective in identifying CI in PD individuals, which might be a potentially useful tool to screen the cognitive decline in PD individuals at an early stage of the disease. Further studies with larger sample sizes in different populations are warranted. Keywords: Parkinson’s disease, cognitive impairment, transcranial ultrasound, resistive index
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".