NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundThe objective of this study was to assess neurofilament light chain as a Parkinson's disease biomarker.MethodsWe quantified neurofilament light chain in 2 independent cohorts: (1) longitudinal cerebrospinal fluid samples from the longitudinal de novo Parkinson's disease cohort and (2) a large longitudinal cohort with serum samples from Parkinson's disease, other cognate/neurodegenerative disorders, healthy controls, prodromal conditions, and mutation carriers.ResultsIn the Parkinson's Progression Marker Initiative cohort, mean baseline serum neurofilament light chain was higher in Parkinson's disease patients (13 ± 7.2 pg/mL) than in controls (12 ± 6.7 pg/mL), P = 0.0336. Serum neurofilament light chain increased longitudinally in Parkinson's disease patients versus controls (P ConclusionsNeurofilament light chain in serum samples is increased in Parkinson's disease patients versus healthy controls, increases over time and with age, and correlates with clinical measures of Parkinson's disease severity. Although the specificity of neurofilament light chain for Parkinson's disease is low, it is the first blood-based biomarker candidate that could support disease stratification of Parkinson's disease versus other cognate/neurodegenerative disorders, track clinical progression, and possibly assess responsiveness to neuroprotective treatments. However, use of neurofilament light chain as a biomarker of response to neuroprotective interventions remains to be assessed. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
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.