SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Microstructural White Matter Characteristics in Parkinson's Disease With Depression: A Diffusion Tensor Imaging Replication Study.

Front Neurol · 2019-08-13

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00884PMID: 31456744

Open accessbrief-report; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Background: Clarifying the neuropathology of depression as a symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD) has been the goal of recent neuroimaging studies; however, results have been conflicting and lack replication. The purpose of the current study was to replicate recent methods that have used diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to compare individuals with PD with and without depression and to extend previous findings to allow for a better understanding of the results. Methods: Thirty-seven participants with de novo PD were retrieved from the Parkinson's Progression Marker's Initiative (PPMI) and were separated into a depressed PD group (dPD) or a non-depressed PD group (ndPD). Groups were determined based on scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form (GDS-15). Initially, a replicated cut off score of ≥ 5 for dPD and Results and Conclusion: The current study did not reveal significant differences in white matter microstructure between dPD and ndPD groups at the whole brain level or in specific regions of interest. The extreme group results were consistent. These findings did not replicate previous work that found reduced white matter integrity in limbic prefrontal regions in dPD relative to ndPD. The current study highlights the need for more replications of neuroimaging research.

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.