ArticleNPJ Parkinson's disease2025
Four questions to predict cognitive decline in de novo Parkinson's disease.
Article in NPJ Parkinson's disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early identification of cognitive decline (CD) in de novo Parkinson's disease (PD) is crucial for choosing appropriate therapies and recruiting for clinical trials. However, existing prognostic models lack flexibility, scalability and require costly instrumentation. This study explores the utility of standard clinical questionnaires and criteria to predict CD in de novo PD. A total of 186 patients from the Parkinson Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) and 48 patients from the Biomarkers of Parkinson's Disease project (BIO-PD) underwent clinical interviews, comprehensive tests, and questionnaires. A model based only on age of disease onset, history of stroke, history of fainting, and vocalization during dreams predicted CD in 2 and 4-year horizons with an area under curve (AUC) of 70% ± 10% standard deviation (cross-validated PPMI), 79% (overall PPMI), and 78% (validation in BIO-PD). This approach enables rapid preliminary screening using just four simple questions, achieving predictive accuracy comparable to instrumentation-based methods while reducing assessment time.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.