Community Disadvantage Is Associated With More Severe Motor Symptoms in Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The relationship between socioeconomic factors and Parkinson disease (PD) is unclear. Previous literature suggests a potential disconnect between the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on PD risk and severity. A recent study found that people with PD in the United States were more likely to come from well-resourced communities. Multiple possible explanations were proposed, including that lower SES could be protective against PD risk. Other studies have found worsened PD symptoms and outcomes associated with lower individual SES. If environmental factors associated with lower SES influence PD biology in a way that worsens symptoms, those processes should also increase PD risk. We set out to determine whether community disadvantage, rather than individual SES, is associated with motor or cognitive symptom severity in PD and atypical parkinsonisms. Methods: Community disadvantage was defined using the Material Community Deprivation Index, a compound score of multiple poverty markers. In our Cincinnati Cohort Biomarkers Program, a cohort that includes PD and atypical parkinsonisms, we tested for associations between community disadvantage and motor symptom severity (Movement Disorders Society Unified PD Rating Scale part III; MDS-UPDRS III), motor disability (Hoehn and Yahr stage [HY]), and cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA]). We considered age, sex, disease duration, levodopa equivalent daily dose, education years, and race as covariates in multiple regression analyses. Results: = 0.45). Discussion: Community disadvantage was associated with worse motor symptom severity and motor disability in PD, suggesting that there are modifiable social and environmental factors that can affect parkinsonian symptom severity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".