Impact of olfactory function on the trajectory of cognition, motor function, and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Olfactory dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease (PD) is associated with more severe phenotypes, but trajectories of cognitive function, disease severity, and subdomains of quality-of-life measurements in patients with distinct olfactory profiles remain underexplored. Objective To analyze the influence of olfaction on trajectories of clinical parameters in patients with PD. Design Retrospective cohort study. Subjects From October 2016 to May 2021, the study tracked 58 participants over 3 years. Participants completed follow-up assessments using tools including the Chinese version of the University of Pennsylvania’s Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, and the Chinese translation of the 39-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). Methods Participants were divided into anosmia (UPSIT < 19) and non-anosmia (UPSIT ≥ 19) groups based on initial scores. Generalized estimating equations and repeated measures correlations were used to examine longitudinal associations and correlations between olfaction and clinical parameters. Results Divergent cognitive trajectories were observed between groups. The anosmia group exhibited a faster cognitive decline (adjusted B [beta coefficient] = −1.8, p = 0.012) according to the interaction effect of olfaction and time on the MoCA score. The anosmia group exhibited no longitudinal correlation between cognition and olfactory function but showed correlations with age ( r rm [coefficient of repeated measures correlation] = −0.464, p = 0.004) and disease duration ( r rm = −0.457, p = 0.005). The non-anosmia group’s UPSIT scores decreased over time ( B = −2.3, p = 0.005) alongside a significant correlation with motor function ( r rm = −0.479, p = 0.006). Conclusion The anosmia group’s accelerated cognitive decline correlated with age and disease duration, but not olfactory function, suggesting a poor cognitive outcome in this population despite the lack of longitudinal correlation between cognition and olfaction. The non-anosmia group exhibited progressive olfactory degradation and notable correlations between motor function and UPSIT scores, implying pathological accumulation in the olfactory structure and basal ganglia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".