Exploring behavioural symptoms and inhibitory control in Parkinson’s disease: Comparison between dementia and non-dementia cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is now being recognized as a complex illness with numerous behavioral symptoms in addition to the well-recognized motor symptoms such as tremors, rigidity, postural instability, and bradykinesia. Inhibitory control is one of the hallmark executive processes impaired in PD. Such deficits may severely affect the quality of life of patients and their caregivers. They may also result in impulsivity or lack of flexibility, arising as risk factors for developing impulse control disorders, which encompasses a wide range of behaviors such as compulsive gambling, buying, sexual behavior, and eating and related disorders. Aim: The present study aims at understanding the behavioral symptoms in connection with inhibitory control in Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) and PD without dementia. Materials and Methods: For the current study, 12 individuals with cognitively unimpaired PD and 10 individuals with PDD were selected. Montreal Cognitive Assessment was used to screen cognitive impairment, and the Go-No-Go test assessed inhibitory control. A behavioral profile in connection with the inhibitory control was obtained for both groups. Further descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to understand any significant difference between the groups concerning inhibitory control. Results: < 0.001). Apathy was the highly prevalent behavioral symptom in both groups, followed by agitation in cognitively unimpaired PD and irritability in those with PDD. In addition, increased sweet food preference, disinhibition, and stubbornness were also present in both groups. Conclusion: Thus, this study will help understand the behavioral profile of patients with PD and PDD concerning inhibitory control. Thus, early detection of behavioral changes in PD can aid in timely prevention of future 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".