SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Screening for a "trifecta" of executive function patterns in a large cohort of individuals with Parkinson's disease.

J Int Neuropsychol Soc · 2025-08-18

DOI: 10.1017/s1355617725101239PMID: 40820661

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveThis study examined three neurocognitive patterns or "clinical pearls" historically viewed as evidence for executive dysfunction in Parkinson disease (PD): 1) letter MethodsA clinical sample of 772 individuals with PD underwent neuropsychological testing including tests of verbal fluency, word list/story recall, recognition memory, and executive function. Raw scores were demographically normed (Heaton) and converted to z-scores for group-level analyses.ResultsLetter fluency performance was worse than category fluency (d = -0.12), with 28% of participants showing a discrepancy of ≥ -1.0 SD. Delayed recall of a list was markedly poorer than story recall (d = -0.86), with 52% of the sample exhibiting ≥ -1.0 SD deficits. Lastly, delayed free recall was worse than recognition memory (d = -0.25), with 24% showing a discrepancy of ≥ -1.0 SD. These patterns did not consistently correlate with executive function scores. The word list ConclusionAmong the three pearls, the most pronounced was stronger memory performance on story recall than word lists, observed in more than half the sample. Only ¼ the participants exhibited all three neurocognitive patterns simultaneously. The variability in patterns across individuals highlights the heterogeneity of cognitive impairment in PD and suggests that intra-individual comparisons may offer a more nuanced insight into cognitive functioning.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.