MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394581349 · doi:10.3390/medicina60040606

Exploring the Spectrum of Visual Illusions and Other Minor Hallucinations in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease in Lithuania

2024· article· en· W4394581349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neringa Jucevičiūtė, Renata Balnytė, Ovidijus Laucius

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHallucinations in medical conditions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual HallucinationIllusionParkinson's diseaseDiseaseAudiologyPsychologySpectrum (functional analysis)Schizophrenia spectrumMedicineCognitive psychologyPsychiatryPsychosisPhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is associated with various non-motor symptoms, including minor hallucinations, comprising visual illusions and presence and passage hallucinations. Despite their occurrence, even in newly diagnosed PD patients, data regarding the prevalence and characteristics of minor hallucinations, visual illusions in particular, remain limited. The aim of this study was to address this knowledge gap by assessing the prevalence of minor hallucinations in PD patients, with a focus on visual illusions. Materials and Methods: In this prospective pilot study, we enrolled 35 PD patients without dementia and 35 age- and gender-matched PD-unaffected individuals. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, clinical data were collected, and all subjects were assessed via questionnaires regarding 20 types of visual illusions and other minor hallucinations. Results: The prevalence of minor hallucinations was significantly higher among PD patients compared to controls (45.7% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.003). PD patients reported visual illusions and presence hallucinations more frequently than the controls (37.1% vs. 8.6% and 22.9% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.009 and p = 0.028, respectively), with no significant difference in passage hallucinations (20% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.306). In the PD group, the most frequently observed visual illusions were complex visual illusions, kinetopsia, and pelopsia; the latter was also the most common visual illusion in the control group. PD patients experiencing visual illusions were more likely to report presence hallucinations compared to patients without visual illusions (53.8% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.002); no significant differences in other clinical characteristics were found. Conclusions: Minor hallucinations are a common phenomenon among PD patients without dementia, with a higher prevalence than among healthy controls. Visual illusions are the most prevalent type of minor hallucinations, affecting more than a third of PD patients, with complex visual illusions, kinetopsia, and pelopsia being the most frequently reported types.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicHallucinations in medical conditionsFrench-language works237,207