Sex differences in cognitive function in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Aim</h3> To determine sex differences in cognitive function in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) in East London. <h3>Background</h3> Sex influences the development and progression of PD. Previous studies have identified higher rates, and faster progression, of cognitive impairment in men. Although this raises important consi- derations for clinical management, it has been understudied in diverse populations. <h3>Methods</h3> We included 184 PD patients enrolled in the East London Parkinson’s disease project (113 male and 71 female). The primary outcome for this analysis was the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). <h3>Results</h3> Men were younger at assessment (mean 67.0 vs 70.4, p=0.042) and women left education earlier (mean 17.2 vs 19.5, p=0.009). Both sexes were below the UK average for deprivation index, but there was no difference between them (mean 4.2 male vs 3.6 female, p=0.23). Overall, there was no difference in cognitive impairment as assessed by MoCA (mean total men 21.7 vs women 20.8, p=0.539). Within ethnic groups, there were also no sex differences evident (White p=0.388, Black p=0.612, South Asian p=0.256). <h3>Conclusions</h3> Although men are considered as having higher cognitive impairment burden, we propose that in diverse populations, other drivers such as education level and deprivation may be stronger deter- minants than sex.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".