Communication problems are not associated with cognitive decline in people with Parkinson’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second neurodegenerative disorder more prevalent globally, typically presenting around age 60. The progressive neurodegeneration process in basal ganglia leads to motor and non-motor symptoms responsible for decreased quality of life. Due to the degenerative process, people with PD present progressive communication difficulty associated with motor symptoms, such as hypokinetic dysarthria and voice variation. Besides the voice dysfunction, cognitive alterations and depression have also been associated with communication impairments. Aim: The present study aims to investigate the association between communication function and motor symptoms severity and mental alterations in people with PD. Methods: A cross-sectional study with a convenience sample of 423 (201 women) people with idiopathic PD, mean age 57.98±10.9, in early to advanced disease stages (I-IV stages according to H&Y rating scale) and 4.21±0.96 years of schooling. All participants were evaluated in individual sections by trained researchers. The self-reported communication problems were assessed by the Communication Domain of the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39); the global cognitive capacity by Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), depression by Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and motor symptoms severity by Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS III). Results: There was a significant difference in self-reported communication problems between people with PD in advanced (H&Y IV) and moderate and early disease stages (H&Y I-III). The self-reported communication problems were correlated with UPDRS III but not age, gender, MoCA, and GDS. Conclusion: The communication impairments increase in advanced stages of PDD and are associated with the severity of motor symptoms but not with cognitive decline and depression. Interventions to improve communication skills in people with PD should focus on motor alterations associated with the phonatory process.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".