ArticleBMC neurology2026
Sex-specific differences and diagnostic tool performance in the neuropsychiatric profile of Parkinson's disease.
Article in BMC neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeuropsychiatric symptoms are prevalent in Parkinson's disease (PD) but remain incompletely characterized, particularly concerning sex-specific differences and the comparative performance of diagnostic tools. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive neuropsychiatric profile of a Taiwanese PD cohort, evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of various assessment tools, and explore correlations with clinical features. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe enrolled 92 PD patients and 57 healthy controls. Participants underwent a comprehensive assessment battery, including motor scales, cognitive measures, and mood inventories. Diagnoses of dementia and depression were established using standard criteria. Diagnostic tool performance was evaluated by calculating the sensitivity and specificity, and relationships between variables were assessed using Spearman correlation.
resultsDementia was identified in 34.8% and depression in 28.3% of PD patients. Female patients had lower scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (25.18 vs. 28.08, p = 0.003) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (21.18 vs. 25.79, p = 0.001), and higher scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) (6.68 vs. 5.02, p = 0.046) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (3.95 vs. 1.79, p = 0.018) compared with male patients. For dementia diagnosis, the clinician-rated MMSE and MoCA demonstrated sensitivities exceeding 90%, whereas the caregiver-rated Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) had a sensitivity of only 25%. For depression, the clinician-rated HAM-D (88.5% sensitivity) outperformed the self-reported Beck's Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) (65.4% sensitivity). Most neuropsychiatric assessments were significantly correlated with age, disease duration, and motor severity.
conclusionsThese findings highlight a considerable neuropsychiatric burden in PD, with a distinct female-predominant vulnerability in cognitive and affective domains. The superior performance of clinician-administered assessments emphasizes their value in improving diagnostic certainty. These results support the routine, comprehensive, and sex-specific neuropsychiatric evaluations in the clinical management of PD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.