Multiculturalism and reported cognitive change in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and how much cognitive decline impacts one's ability to perform instrumental activities of daily living (iADLs) are necessary elements of neuropsychological assessment when diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Though limited, the literature suggests that culture and self-appraisal of cognitive abilities are related. However, it is unclear if differences exist in the subjective elements of neuropsychological assessments between patients born in Anglosphere countries (Canada, the USA, and the UK) versus immigrants born elsewhere (International Group). METHOD: = 764). Reports of SCD and iADL difficulties were extracted from neuropsychological reports and coded by two independent raters. We also examined responses on self- and family-rated questionnaires of executive functioning and iADL difficulties. RESULTS: Anglosphere and International patients did not differ on overall, memory, or attention SCD, or overall iADL difficulties based on interviews. Anglosphere patients reported more executive and language SCD during the interview but International care-partners reported more current executive dysfunction on a questionnaire. International patients and care-partners reported more iADL difficulties on a questionnaire, which they ascribed to motor (not cognitive) symptoms. The effects on questionnaires were small and persisted after accounting for depression severity ratings. CONCLUSION: There were no consistent group differences in the number or pervasiveness of SCD or iADL difficulties reported by Anglosphere versus International groups. Immigration status has limited effect on these subjective elements and they should be given significant weight when diagnosing cognitive dysfunction in 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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".