Dementia Risk Prediction in a Longitudinal Geriatric Parkinson’s Disease Cohort: Evaluation and Application of the Montreal Parkinson Risk of Dementia Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) increases risk for dementia and cascading adverse outcomes. The eight-item Montreal Parkinson Risk of Dementia Scale (MoPaRDS) is a rapid, in-office dementia screening tool. We examine predictive validity and other characteristics of the MoPaRDS in a geriatric PD cohort by testing a series of alternative versions and modelling risk score change trajectories. Methods: Participants were 48 initially non-demented PD patients (Mage = 71.6 years, range = 65-84) from a three-year, three-wave prospective Canadian cohort study. A dementia diagnosis at Wave 3 was used to stratify two baseline groups: PD with Incipient Dementia (PDID) and PD with No Dementia (PDND). We aimed to predict dementia three years prior to diagnosis using baseline data for eight indicators that harmonized with the original report, plus education. Results: Three MoPaRDS items (age, orthostatic hypotension, mild cognitive impairment [MCI]) discriminated the groups both independently and as a composite three-item scale (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.88). The eight-item MoPaRDS reliably discriminated PDID from PDND (AUC = 0.81). Education did not improve predictive validity (AUC = 0.77). Performance of the eight-item MoPaRDS varied across sex (AUCfemales = 0.91; AUCmales = 0.74), whereas the three-item configuration did not (AUCfemales = 0.88; AUCmales = 0.91). Risk scores of both configurations increased over time. Conclusions: We report new data on the application of the MoPaRDS as a dementia prediction tool for a geriatric PD cohort. Results support the viability of the full MoPaRDS, and indicate that an empirically determined brief version is a promising complement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".