SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Cholinergic Nucleus 4 Degeneration and Cognitive Impairment in Isolated Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behavior Disorder.

Mov Disord · 2023-01-04

DOI: 10.1002/mds.29306PMID: 36598142

Check source for accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundCholinergic nucleus 4 (Ch4) degeneration is associated with cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies, but it is unknown if Ch4 degeneration is also present in isolated rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (iRBD).ObjectiveThe aim was to determine if there is evidence of Ch4 degeneration in patients with iRBD and if it is associated with cognitive impairment.MethodsWe analyzed the clinical and neuropsychological data of 35 iRBD patients and 35 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Regional gray matter density (GMD) was calculated for Ch4 using probabilistic maps applied to brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).ResultsCh4 GMD was significantly lower in the iRBD group compared to controls (0.417 vs. 0.441, P = 0.02). Ch4 GMD was also found to be a significant predictor of letter number sequencing (β-coefficient = 58.31, P = 0.026, 95% confidence interval [7.47, 109.15]), a measure of working memory.ConclusionsiRBD is associated with Ch4 degeneration, and Ch4 degeneration in iRBD is associated with impairment in working memory. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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.