The prevalence and clinical characteristics of pathological gambling in Parkinson disease: An evidence-based review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large prospective studies in the USA and Canada have estimated the prevalence of pathological gambling (PG) in the general population at 0.43% and 1% respectively. Studies using equivalent methodology in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) have reported markedly higher prevalence rates. A total of 1032 patients with PD have been included in clinical studies in North America, Great Britain and Italy. Of these, 3.2% met diagnostic criteria for PG. The prevalence of PG was found to be higher in men than in women with PD, although the difference was not statistically significant. A younger age at onset of PD, increased novelty-seeking behaviour and a history of alcohol misuse have been found to be associated with PG in this population. Pathological gambling has been associated with dopamine agonist use, and the prevalence of the association has been found to be 5.7% in patients with PD. Although the literature suggests a high incidence of psychiatric co-morbidity, particularly depression and other impulse control disorders, this is yet to be confirmed by case-control studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".