MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399600304 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209609

The Parkinson's Disease Composite of Executive Functioning

2024· article· en· W4399600304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christina B. Young, Brenna Cholerton, Alena Smith, Marian Shahid, Carla Abdelnour, Elizabeth C. Mormino, Shu‐Ching Hu, Kathryn A. Chung, Amie Peterson, Liana S. Rosenthal, Alexander Pantelyat, Ted M. Dawson, Joseph F. Quinn, Cyrus P. Zabetian, Thomas J. Montine, Kathleen L. Poston

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeEli Lilly and CompanyNational Institute on AgingGenentechSun PharmaJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsParkinson's diseaseExecutive functionsPsychologyExecutive dysfunctionDiseaseMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceNeuropsychologyCognitionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Executive functioning is one of the first domains to be impaired in Parkinson disease (PD), and the majority of patients with PD eventually develop dementia. Thus, developing a cognitive endpoint measure specifically assessing executive functioning is critical for PD clinical trials. The objective of this study was to develop a cognitive composite measure that is sensitive to decline in executive functioning for use in PD clinical trials. METHODS: We used cross-sectional and longitudinal follow-up data from PD participants enrolled in the PD Cognitive Genetics Consortium, a multicenter setting focused on PD. All PD participants with Trail Making Test, Digit Symbol, Letter-Number Sequencing, Semantic Fluency, and Phonemic Fluency neuropsychological data collected from March 2010 to February 2020 were included. Baseline executive functioning data were used to create the Parkinson's Disease Composite of Executive Functioning (PaCEF) through confirmatory factor analysis. We examined the changes in the PaCEF over time, how well baseline PaCEF predicts time to cognitive progression, and the required sample size estimates for PD clinical trials. PaCEF results were compared with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), individual tests forming the PaCEF, and tests of visuospatial, language, and memory functioning. RESULTS: A total of 841 participants (251 no cognitive impairment [NCI], 480 mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and 110 dementia) with baseline data were included, of which the mean (SD) age was 67.1 (8.9) years and 270 were women (32%). Five hundred forty five PD participants had longitudinal neuropsychological data spanning 9 years (mean [SD] 4.5 [2.2] years) and were included in analyses examining cognitive decline. A 1-factor model of executive functioning with excellent fit (comparative fit index = 0.993, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.989, and root mean square error of approximation = 0.044) was used to calculate the PaCEF. The average annual change in PaCEF ranged from 0.246 points per year for PD-NCI participants who remained cognitively unimpaired to -0.821 points per year for PD-MCI participants who progressed to dementia. For PD-MCI, baseline PaCEF, but not baseline MoCA, significantly predicted time to dementia. Sample size estimates were 69%-73% smaller for PD-NCI trials and 16%-19% smaller for PD-MCI trials when using the PaCEF rather than MoCA as the endpoint. DISCUSSION: The PaCEF is a sensitive measure of executive functioning decline in PD and will be especially beneficial for PD clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueNeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207