Profiling people with Parkinson's disease at risk of cognitive decline: Insights from PPMI and ICICLE‐PD data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A subset of people with Parkinson's disease (PD) develop dementia faster than others. We aimed to profile PD cognitive subtypes at risk of dementia based on their rate of cognitive decline. Method: = 212) datasets based on their decline in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment over at least 4 years. Baseline demographic and cognitive data at diagnosis were compared between subtypes to determine their clinical profile. Results: Four subtypes were identified: two with stable cognition, one with steady decline, and one with rapid decline. Performance on Judgement of Line Orientation, but not category fluency, was associated with a steady decline in the PPMI dataset, and deficits in category fluency, but not visuospatial function, were associated with a steady decline in the ICICLE-PD dataset. Discussion: People with PD susceptible to cognitive decline demonstrate unique clinical profiles at diagnosis, although this differed between cohorts. Highlights: Four cognitive subtypes were revealed in two Parkinson's disease samples.Unique profiles of cognitive impairment were related to cognitive decline.Judgement of Line Orientation/category fluency predictive of steady decline.Global deficits related to rapid cognitive decline and increased dementia risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".