NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Iron has been increasingly implicated in the pathology of neurodegenerative diseases. In the past decade, development of the new magnetic resonance imaging technique, quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM), has enabled for the more comprehensive investigation of iron distribution in the brain. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a synthesis of the findings from existing QSM studies in neurodegenerative diseases. We identified 80 records by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and PsycInfo databases. The disorders investigated in these studies included Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Wilson's disease, Huntington's disease, Friedreich's ataxia, spinocerebellar ataxia, Fabry disease, myotonic dystrophy, pantothenate-kinase-associated neurodegeneration, and mitochondrial membrane protein-associated neurodegeneration. As a general pattern, QSM revealed increased magnetic susceptibility (suggestive of increased iron content) in the brain regions associated with the pathology of each disorder, such as the amygdala and caudate nucleus in Alzheimer's disease, the substantia nigra in Parkinson's disease, motor cortex in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, basal ganglia in Huntington's disease, and cerebellar dentate nucleus in Friedreich's ataxia. Furthermore, the increased magnetic susceptibility correlated with disease duration and severity of clinical features in some disorders. Although the number of studies is still limited in most of the neurodegenerative diseases, the existing evidence suggests that QSM can be a promising tool in the investigation of neurodegeneration.
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.