Quantifying activities of daily living impairment in Parkinson's disease using the Functional Activities Questionnaire.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive-driven activity of daily living (ADL) impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD) is increasingly discussed as prodromal marker for dementia. Diagnostic properties of assessments for this specific ADL impairment are sparsely investigated in PD. The ability of the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) for differentiating between PD patients with normal cognition and with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI), according to informant and self-reports, was examined. Global cognitive function in groups with and without mild ADL impairment was compared according to different cut-offs.Multicenter data of 589 patients of an international cohort (CENTRE-PD) were analyzed. Analyses were run separately for informant-rated and self-rated FAQ. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted to define the optimal FAQ cut-off for PD-MCI (≥ 1), and groups were additionally split according to reported FAQ cut-offs for PD-MCI in the literature (≥ 3, ≥ 5). Binary logistic regressions examined the effect of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score in PD patients with and without mild ADL impairment.Two hundred and twenty-five (38.2%) patients were classified as PD-MCI. For all three cut-off values, sensitivity was moderate to low (< 0.55), but specificity was moderately high (> 0.54) with a tendency of higher values for self-reported deficits. For the self-report, the cut-off ≥ 3 showed a significant effect of the MoCA (B = - 0.31, p = 0.003), where FAQ ≥ 3 patients had worse cognition. No effect for group differences based on informant ratings was detected.Our data argue that self-reported ADL impairments assessed by the FAQ show a relation to the severity of cognitive impairment in PD.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it