Decoding Prodromal Parkinson’s Disease: Clinical Differences between Isolated Hyposmia and REM Sleep Behavior Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease (PD), much like the disease itself, displays marked heterogeneity, with varied rates of progression and symptom severities. A detailed clinical characterization of prodromal subgroups may provide useful insights for both clinical and research settings. Objectives To compare clinical assessments in patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (iRBD) and those with isolated hyposmia. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on 191 patients with iRBD, 213 patients with isolated hyposmia and 150 healthy controls recruited in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. The earliest available assessment for each participant was selected. Our analysis investigated and compared the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease Autonomic Dysfunction (SCOPA-AUT) and Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Parts I, II and III scores across the three groups. To assess differences, after adjusting for age and sex, we employed permutations testing. We further investigated the specific question items that contributed most significantly to the observed variations between the groups. Results We found significant differences between the healthy control group and a combined prodromal group across all assessment categories, with prodromal participants displaying poorer scores. For between prodromal groups comparison, significant differences emerged in SCOPA-AUT and MDS-UPDRS Part I scores, with the iRBD group presenting with more severe scores. Conclusion Our study highlights that even in the premotor stage of PD, clinical distinctions exist in terms of autonomic burden between individuals with iRBD and those with isolated hyposmia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".