Gender-related differences in cognitive performance and cognitive stimulation efficacy in subjects with Parkinson’s disease and mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Gender-related differences in cognitive performances of subjects with Parkinson’s Disease and mild cognitive impairment (MCI-PD) have been recently investigated in a few studies, yielding heterogeneous results. Cognitive stimulation (CS) is a promising non-pharmacological treatment in MCI-PD subjects and no data regarding gender differences in its efficacy are available yet. The aim of this study was to investigate gender-related differences in cognitive functions and CS efficacy in subjects with MCI-PD. Methods Forty-five MCI-PD subjects (30 men, 15 women) were randomized to a 4-week CS program, delivered either via tele-rehabilitation (TR) or with a conventional in-person approach. A broad clinical and neuropsychological assessment, including the Cognitive Reserve Index questionnaire, was conducted at baseline (T1), post-treatment (T2), and at 6-month follow-up (T3). Results At baseline, women showed a lower cognitive reserve (CR) compared to men ( p = 0.039). After adjusting for CR, women performed worse than men in global cognition, attention, and visuospatial abilities. After CS treatment, men demonstrated significant improvements in global cognition, language, executive functions, working memory, visuospatial abilities, attention, and trait anxiety ( p < 0.05). Women showed significant improvements in global cognition (MoCA, p = 0.036) and mood (BDI, p = 0.021). Men outperformed women in several domains, both in TR and in-person rehabilitation groups. Regression models revealed a stronger modulatory effect of CR in global cognition, attention, memory, and language, in women. After a 6-month treatment discontinuation, cognitive performance measures significantly worsened in all subjects, regardless of gender. Conclusion Our study showed gender-related differences both in cognitive functions and in efficacy of CS in subjects with MCI-PD, also highlighting the role of cognitive reserve. These findings support the relevance of developing gender-tailored cognitive rehabilitation strategies to enhance treatment outcomes and improve the quality of life for individuals with MCI-PD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".