Influencia de la reserva cognitiva sobre la función cognitiva en pacientes con Enfermedad de Parkinson en dos hospitales nacionales de Lima. Abril - Setiembre del 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to determine how much cognitive reserve influences on cognitive profile in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Therefore, an analytic, observational and prospective study was designed. The study population was integrated by PD patients from Hospital Regional de Huacho and Hospital de Chancay. A structure questionnaire validated by experts in the field and a standardized neuropsychological test were utilized to collect the patient information. \nResults were based on 90 PD patients, 49 (54.4%) men, the mean of age was 66.5 (SD=11.7). Cognitive impairment was present in 75 patients (83.3%). Cognitive reserve was divided in low (26 patients), middle (44 patients) and high (20 patients). Correlation between cognitive profile and cognitive reserve was statistically significant when cognitive profile was evaluated by Minimental test (r = 0.43; p=0.001) as well as cognitive profile was evaluated by Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA) (r = 0.55; p=0.001). This correlation was better explained by univariate and multivariate regression analysis. \nConclusions of the study were, first, cognitive reserve influence positively on cognitive profile in patients with PD and, second, a high percentage of patients show cognitive compromise in any phase of the disease. \n \nKey words: cognitive reserve, cognitive profile, Parkinson’s disease, cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".