Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveTo assess the role of visual measures and retinal volume to predict the risk of Parkinson disease (PD) dementia.MethodsIn this cohort study, we collected visual, cognitive, and motor data in people with PD. Participants underwent ophthalmic examination, retinal imaging using optical coherence tomography, and visual assessment including acuity and contrast sensitivity and high-level visuoperception measures of skew tolerance and biological motion. We assessed the risk of PD dementia using a recently described algorithm that combines age at onset, sex, depression, motor scores, and baseline cognition.ResultsOne hundred forty-six people were included in the study (112 with PD and 34 age-matched controls). The mean disease duration was 4.1 (±2·5) years. None of these participants had dementia. Higher risk of dementia was associated with poorer performance in visual measures (acuity: ρ = 0.29, p = 0.0024; contrast sensitivity: ρ = -0.37, p p = 0.0073; and biological motion: ρ = -0.26, p = 0.0054). In addition, higher risk of PD dementia was associated with thinner retinal structure in layers containing dopaminergic cells, measured as ganglion cell layer (GCL) and inner plexiform layer (IPL) thinning (ρ = -0.29, p = 0.0021; ρ = -0.33, p = 0.00044). These relationships were not seen for the retinal nerve fiber layer that does not contain dopaminergic cells and were not seen in unaffected controls.ConclusionVisual measures and retinal structure in dopaminergic layers were related to risk of PD dementia. Our findings suggest that visual measures and retinal GCL and IPL volumes may be useful to predict the risk of dementia in PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.