Profiles of Motor-cognitive Interference in Parkinson's Disease. The Trail-Walking-Test to Discriminate between Motor Phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims. Most research on Parkinson's disease (PD) focuses on describing symp-toms and movement characteristics. Studies rarely focus on the early detection of PD and the search for suitable markers of a prodromal stage. Early detection is important, so treatments that may potentially change the course of the disease can be attempted early on. While gait disturb-ances are less pronounced in the early stages of the disease, the prevalence, and severity increase with disease progression. Therefore, postural instability and gait difficulties could be identified as sensitive biomarkers. The aim was to evaluate the discriminatory power of the Trail-Walking Test (Schott, 2015) as a potential diagnostic instrument to improve the predictive power of the clinical evaluation concerning the severity of the disease and record the different aspects of walking. Methods. 20 older healthy (M = 72.4 years, SD = 5.53) adults and 46 older adults with PD and the motor phenotypes postural instability/gait difficulty (PIGD; M = 69.7 years, SD = 8.68) and tremor dominant (TD; M = 68.2 years, SD = 8.94) participated in the study. The participants performed a motor-cognitive dual task (DT) of increasing cognitive difficulty in which they had to walk a given path (condition 1), walk to numbers in ascending order (condition 2), and walk to numbers and letters alternately and in ascending order (condition 3). Results. With an increase in the cognitive load, the time to complete the tasks (seconds) become longer in all groups, F(1.23, 73.5) = 121, p < .001, ɳ2p = .670. PD-PIGD shows the longest times in all conditions of the TWT, F(2, 60) = 8.15, p < .001, ɳ2p = .214. Mutual interferences in the cognitive and motor domain can be observed. How-ever, clear group-specific patterns cannot be identified. A differentiation between the motor phenotypes of PD is especially feasible with the purely motor condition (TWT-M; AUC = . 685, p = 0.44). Conclusions. PD patients with PIGD must be identified by valid, well-evaluated clinical tests that allow a precise assessment of the disease's individual fall risk, the severity of the dis-ease, and the prognosis of progression. The TWT covers various aspects of mobility, examines the relationship between cognitive functions and walking, and enables differentiation of the motor phenotypes of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".