Parkinson’s disease psychosis associated with accelerated multidomain cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cognitive deficits are associated with poor quality of life and increased risk of development of dementia in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) psychosis. The trajectory of cognitive decline in PD psychosis remains however unclear. Objective We examined this using data from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative study. Methods We analysed data from patients with drug-naïve PD (n=676) and healthy controls (HC, n=187) over 5 years, and examined all cognitive measures assessed at each time point. We classified patients with PD into those who developed psychosis over the course of the study (PDP) and those without psychosis throughout (PDnP) using the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part I hallucinations/psychosis item. We used linear mixed-effect models with restricted maximum likelihood. Age, sex, ethnicity, education and neuropsychiatric and PD-specific symptoms were entered as covariates of interest. Findings There were no baseline cognitive differences between PD patient groups. There were differences in cognitive performance between PD and HC across the majority of the assessments.Patients with PDP exhibited greater cognitive decline over 5 years compared with PDnP across most domains even after controlling for sociodemographics, depression, sleepiness, rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder and motor symptom severity (immediate recall, b=−0.288, p = 0.003; delayed recall, b=−0.146, p = 0.003; global cognition, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, b=−0.206, p < 0.001; visuospatial, b=−0.178, p = 0.012; semantic fluency, b=−0.704, p = 0.002; processing speed, b=−0.337, p = 0.029). Conclusions Patients with PD psychosis exhibited decline in semantic aspects of language, processing speed, global cognition, visuospatial abilities and memory, regardless of sociodemographic characteristics, neuropsychiatric and motor symptoms. These cognitive domains, particularly semantic aspects of language may therefore play an important role in PD psychosis and warrant further investigation. Trial registration number NCT01141023 .
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".