Olfaction and cognitive performance in early‐stage Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder affecting 1% of the global population. While the core clinical symptoms of PD are bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor, it is also often accompanied by non‐motor symptoms that reduce quality of life and increase health care costs. Of the non‐motor symptoms in PD, hyposmia is one of the most prevalent and often precedes clinical diagnosis by several years. In addition, hyposmia has been associated with accelerated disease progression. As individuals with PD are at elevated risk for dementia, the goal of this pilot study was to objectively evaluate the association between smell sensitivity and cognition in early‐stage PD. Method Participants with a clinical diagnosis of PD completed cognitive assessments of verbal and visual learning and memory, processing speed, attention, and executive function. Smell sensitivity was assessed using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). Associations between cognitive performance and smell sensitivity were evaluated using partial correlations adjusting for age and education. Result Nineteen participants (mean age 69.4+7.9, 25% female) with early‐stage Parkinson’s disease (Hoehn and Yahr stage 1‐2) and free of dementia completed the UPSIT and cognitive assessments (see table 1 for sample characteristics). The average UPSIT score was 5.84+2.12 points and ranged from 2 to 10. Diminished olfactory sensitivity, assessed by the total correct score on the UPSIT, was associated with poorer visual learning (Brief Visual Memory Test Revised (BVMT‐R) immediate recall: r = 0.564, p = 0.18, Figure 1) and memory (BVMT‐R delayed recall: r = 0.610, p = 0.009, Figure 2). Conclusion In the early‐stages of PD, diminished smell sensitivity was associated with poorer visual learning and memory, domains preferentially affected by the disease. The findings suggest that olfactory dysfunction may be a biomarker of cognitive decline. Larger, longitudinal studies will be important for evaluating the utility of olfactory function as a predictor of dementia risk 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".