Original research: initial development of a pragmatic tool to estimate cognitive decline risk focusing on potentially modifiable factors in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Cognitive decline is common in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Calculating personalized risk of cognitive decline in PD would allow for appropriate counseling, early intervention with available treatments, and inclusion in disease-modifying trials. Methods Data were from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative de novo cohort. Baseline scores were calculated for Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) and the Montreal Parkinson Risk of Dementia Scale (MoPaRDS) per prior literature and preliminary Parkinson’s disease Risk Estimator for Decline In Cognition Tool (pPREDICT) by attributing a point for fourteen posited risk factors. Baseline and 5-year follow-up composite cognitive scores (CCSs) were calculated from a neuropsychological battery and used to define cognitive decliners (PD-decline) versus maintainers (PD-maintain). Results The PD-decline group (n = 44) had higher LIBRA (6.76 ± 0.57, p < 0.05), MoPaRDS (2.45 ± 1.41, p < 0.05) and pPREDICT (4.52 ± 1.66, p < 0.05) scores compared to the PD-maintain group (n = 263; LIBRA 4.98 ± 0.20, MoPaRDS 1.68 ± 1.16, pPREDICT 3.38 ± 1.69). Area-under-the-curve (AUC) for LIBRA was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.73), MoPaRDS was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.58–0.75) and for pPREDICT was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61–0.76). In linear regression analyses, LIBRA (p < 0.05), MoPaRDS (p < 0.05) and pPREDICT (p < 0.05) predicted change in CCS. Only age stratified by sex (p < 0.05) contributed significantly to the model for LIBRA. Age and presence of hallucinations (p < 0.05) contributed significantly to the model for MoPaRDS. Male sex, older age, excessive daytime sleepiness, and moderate–severe motor symptoms (all p < 0.05) contributed significantly to the model for pPREDICT. Conclusion Although MoPaRDS is a PD-specific tool for predicting cognitive decline relying on only clinical features, it does not focus on potentially modifiable risk factors. LIBRA does focus on potentially modifiable risk factors and is associated with prediction of all-cause dementia in some populations, but pPREDICT potentially demonstrates improved performance in cognitive decline risk calculation in individuals with PD and may identify actionable risk factors. As pPREDICT incorporates multiple potentially modifiable risk factors that can be obtained easily in the clinical setting, it is a first step in developing an easily assessable tool for a personalized approach to reduce dementia risk in people with 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 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 | 0.047 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".