SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Six Visual Rating Scales as A Biomarker for Monitoring Atrophied Brain Volume in Parkinson's Disease.

Aging Dis · 2020-10-01

DOI: 10.14336/ad.2019.1103PMID: 33014524

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

The focus of our investigation was to determine the feasibility of using six visual rating scales as whole-brain imaging markers for monitoring atrophied brain volume in Parkinson's disease (PD). This was a prospective cross-sectional single-center observational study. A total of 98 PD patients were enrolled and underwent an MRI scan and a battery of neuropsychological evaluations. The brain volume was calculated using the online resource MRICloud. Brain atrophy was rated based on six visual rating scales. Correlation analysis was performed between visual rating scores and brain volume and clinical features. We found a significant negative correlation between the total scores of visual rating scores and quantitative brain volume, indicating that six visual rating scales reliably reflect whole brain atrophy in PD. Multiple linear regression-based analyses indicated severer non-motor symptoms were significantly associated with higher scores on the visual rating scales. Furthermore, we performed sample size calculations to evaluate the superiority of visual rating scales; the result show that using total scores of visual rating scales as an outcome measure, sample sizes for differentiating cognition injury require significantly fewer subjects (n = 177) compared with using total brain volume (n = 2524). Our data support the use of the total visual rating scores rather than quantitative brain volume as a biomarker for monitoring cerebral atrophy.

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.