SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Sex Differences in Brain and Cognition in <i>de novo</i> Parkinson's Disease.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2022-01-06

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2021.791532PMID: 35069180

Open accessbrief-report; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background and Objective: Brain atrophy and cognitive impairment in neurodegenerative diseases are influenced by sex. We aimed to investigate sex differences in brain atrophy and cognition in de novo Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. Methods: Clinical, neuropsychological and T1-weighted MRI data from 205 PD patients (127 males: 78 females) and 69 healthy controls (40 males: 29 females) were obtained from the PPMI dataset. Results: PD males had a greater motor and rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder symptomatology than PD females. They also showed cortical thinning in postcentral and precentral regions, greater global cortical and subcortical atrophy and smaller volumes in thalamus, caudate, putamen, pallidum, hippocampus, and brainstem, compared with PD females. Healthy controls only showed reduced hippocampal volume in males compared to females. PD males performed worse than PD females in global cognition, immediate verbal recall, and mental processing speed. In both groups males performed worse than females in semantic verbal fluency and delayed verbal recall; as well as females performed worse than males in visuospatial function. Conclusions: Sex effect in brain and cognition is already evident in de novo PD not explained by age per se, being a relevant factor to consider in clinical and translational research in PD.

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.