SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Diagnostic Ability of Radiofrequency Ultrasound in Parkinson's Disease Compared to Conventional Transcranial Sonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Diagnostics (Basel) · 2020-10-02

DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10100778PMID: 33023076

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

We aimed to estimate tissue displacements' parameters in midbrain using ultrasound radiofrequency (RF) signals and to compare diagnostic ability of this RF transcranial sonography (TCS)-based dynamic features of disease affected tissues with conventional TCS (cTCS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) while differentiating patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) from healthy controls (HC). US tissue displacement waveform parametrization by RF TCS for endogenous brain tissue motion, standard neurological examination, cTCS and MRI data collection were performed for 20 PD patients and for 20 age- and sex-matched HC in a prospective manner. Three logistic regression models were constructed, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were applied. The model constructed of RF TCS-based brain tissue displacement parameters-frequency of high-end spectra peak and root mean square-revealed presumably increased anisotropy in the midbrain and demonstrated rather good diagnostic ability in the PD evaluation, although it was not superior to that of the cTCS or MRI. Future studies are needed in order to establish the true place of RF TCS detected tissue displacement parameters for the evaluation of pathologically affected brain tissue.

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.