Association between metabolic syndrome and progression in Parkinson's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundParkinson's disease (PD) and metabolic syndrome are separate entities that share common underlying pathophysiology. Management strategy for metabolic syndrome is clinically better characterized and finding a positive clinical correlation between the two could lead to a better understanding of Parkinson's disease progression and prognosis.PurposeTo explore the relationship between progression in PD and metabolic syndrome to characterize the underlying pathophysiology, which could then impact the clinical management of PD.MethodsUsing modified NCEP (National Cholesterol Education Program) ATP III (Adult Treatment Plan) criteria, patients enrolled in STEADY-PD III (Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy Assessment of Isradipine) were classified into one of three categories of metabolic syndrome and compared on PD progression over a period of 3 years.ResultsParticipants with metabolic syndrome showed a trend for more progression in terms of PD, as measured by the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), the motor EDL (Experiences of daily living) scores of the Movement Disorder Society - Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). A significant trend for decline in MoCA was found in the group with metabolic syndrome (−0.78), compared with those without metabolic syndrome (0.14). Greater decline in MoCA signifies worse outcomes.ConclusionThe results demonstrate a trend in more clinical progression in PD in subjects with metabolic syndrome. However, results are limited by the sample size and the limited laboratory measurements available. We hope this study will encourage larger sample studies to explore this relationship further.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".