Association of Early Weight Change With Cognitive Decline in Patients With Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To examine whether early weight change is associated with subsequent deterioration in cognitive function, including overall performance and specific domains, in Parkinson disease (PD). METHODS: This observational study used data from the Parkinson Progression Markers Initiative cohort. The patients underwent annual nonmotor assessments covering neuropsychiatric, sleep-related, and autonomic symptoms for up to 8 years of follow-up. Cognitive function was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and detailed neuropsychological testing. Linear mixed-effects models were applied to investigate the association of early weight change with longitudinal evolution of cognitive and other nonmotor symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 358 patients with early PD were classified into weight loss (decrease of >3% body weight during the first year; n = 98), weight maintenance (within ±3%; n = 201), and weight gain (increase of >3%; n = 59) groups. The weight loss group showed a significantly faster decline in MoCA scores than the weight maintenance group (β = -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.10). With respect to specific cognitive domains, the weight loss group showed a steeper decline in sematic fluency test scores (β = -0.37, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.08) and MoCA phonemic fluency scores (β = -0.18, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.05) and, to a lesser extent, Letter-Number Sequencing scores (β = -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.01) compared with the weight maintenance group. Conversely, the weight gain group showed a slower decline in the Symbol Digit Modalities Test scores (β = 0.34, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.63), although no association was found with longitudinal changes in MoCA scores. We did not find any significant effects of weight change on the progression of other nonmotor symptoms. DISCUSSION: Early weight loss was associated with a faster progression of decline in global cognitive function and executive function in patients with PD, whereas early weight gain was associated with a slower progression of decline in processing speed and attention. The impact of early weight change on nonmotor symptoms seemed to be specific to cognition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".