Comparison of disability level between early and late onset Parkinson’s disease using WHODAS-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a degenerative neurological disorder that usually affects people over the age of 60. However, 10% – 20 % of patients have an early onset of PD (EOPD). Objective: To compare disability levels according to the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS-2) between people with EOPD and those with late-onset PD (LOPD). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 95 EOPD patients (mean-age 44.51±4.63, H&Y 1.93±0.93) and 255 LOPD patients (mean-age 63.01±7.99, H&Y 2.02±0.95). Demographic information, clinical characteristics, cognitive evaluation by Telephone-Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment (T-MoCA), functionality self-evaluation by WHODAS-2 and the Unified-Parkinson’s-Disease- Rating-Scale (MDS-UPDRS), parts I and II, were documented for each patient by an individual remote interview. Results: Analysis showed a statistically significant difference between EOPD and LOPD in two domains of WHODAS-2 only: cognition (Z-adjusted = 2.60; p-value adjusted <0.009) and activities of daily living related to work/school (Z-adjusted = 2.34; p-value adjusted <0.01). T-MoCA scores confirmed more impaired cognition capacity in LOPD (Z-adjusted = 2.42; p-value adjusted <0.01). The two groups had no significant differences in levodopa daily dosage, Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stages, disease time duration, and MDS-UPDRS I and II scores. Conclusion: People living with EOPD face similar disability levels as those with LOPD, except for cognition, where LOPD patients exhibited higher levels of disability than EOPD and for work activities where the EOPD exhibited higher levels of disability than LODP. These results highlight the challenges faced by people with EOPD in interacting with society and living with the disease for a longer time. The WHODAS-2 can be a useful tool to assess disability and tailor interventions for people with PD of different age groups.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".