MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412946819 · doi:10.1002/mdc3.70243

The Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist for Parkinson's Disease: An Ancillary Instrument in Cognitive Assessment

2025· article· en· W4412946819 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gabriel David Pinilla-Monsalve, Song Yuan, Alexandru Hanganu, Zahinoor Ismail, Oury Monchi

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders Clinical Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalSouth Health CampusInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchParkinson CanadaEli Lilly and CompanyUniversité de MontréalEisaiH. Lundbeck A/S
KeywordsChecklistParkinson's diseaseCognitive impairmentPsychologyCognitive Assessment SystemCognitionMedicineDiseaseClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognitive psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mild behavioral impairment (MBI) is a syndrome characterized by the later-life onset of neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) and serves as a potential marker for dementia. In Parkinson's disease (PD), MBI has been associated with worse cognition, cortical atrophy, and altered connectivity. Unlike existing instruments that assess NPS in PD, the MBI Checklist (MBI-C) leverages sustained behavioral changes to identify patients at risk of cognitive impairment and neurodegeneration. The 34-item MBI-C has yet to be validated in PD. OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the MBI-C's psychometric properties in a multicenter Canadian PD sample and proposes a revised version optimized for PD. METHODS: A total of 406 PD patients from the Canadian Open Parkinson Network were assessed with the MBI-C to investigate its construct validity. Additional evaluations, including the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), were implemented to examine the concurrent and criterion validities of the checklist. RESULTS: The original MBI-C exhibited considerable floor effects (24.9%). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 5-factor 24-item MBI-C as consistent for PD (Cronbach's α = 0.856). All intrafactor correlations were statistically significant (P < 0.05), and convergent validity was found to be higher than divergent validity. Moreover, the MBI-C demonstrated moderate concurrent validity with the NPI (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.633, P < 0.001). The cutoff score associated with cognitive impairment on the revised instrument was 6|7. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the original version, the revised MBI-C exhibited enhanced psychometric properties for measuring MBI in PD. It also demonstrated acceptable specificity when related to cognitive impairment. Future psychometric research should focus on capturing the subtlest manifestations of MBI in PD, examining patient-caregiver concordance, and addressing predictive validity for cognitive decline.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.390 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement Disorders Clinical PracticeSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207