Risk of Cognitive Impairment in Patients With Parkinson’s Disease With Visual Hallucinations and Subjective Cognitive Complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose Visual hallucinations (VH) and subjective cognitive complaints (SCC) are associated with cognitive impairment (CI) in Parkinson's disease.Our aims were to determine the association between VH and SCC and the risk of CI development in a cohort of patients with Parkinson's disease and normal cognition (PD-NC).Methods Patients with PD-NC (total score of >80 on the Parkinson's Disease Cognitive Rating Scale [PD-CRS]) recruited from the Spanish COPPADIS cohort from January 2016 to November 2017 were followed up after 2 years.Subjects with a score of ≥1 on domain 5 and item 13 of the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale at baseline (V0) were considered as "with SCC" and "with VH, " respectively.CI at the 2-year follow-up (plus or minus 1 month) (V2) was defined as a PD-CRS total score of <81.Results At V0 (n=376, 58.2% males, age 61.14±8.73 years [mean±SD]), the frequencies of VH and SCC were 13.6% and 62.2%, respectively.VH were more frequent in patients with SCC than in those without: 18.8% (44/234) vs 4.9% (7/142), p<0.0001.At V2, 15.2% (57/376) of the patients had developed CI.VH presenting at V0 was associated with a higher risk of CI at V2 (odds ratio [OR]=2.68,95% confidence interval=1.05-6.83,p=0.039) after controlling for the effects of age, disease duration, education, medication, motor and nonmotor status, mood, and PD-CRS total score at V0.Although SCC were not associated with CI at V2, presenting both VH and SCC at V0 increased the probability of having CI at V2 (OR=3.71,95% confidence in-terval=1.36-10.17,p=0.011).Conclusions VH were associated with the development of SCC and CI at the 2-year follow-up in patients with PD-NC.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".