SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Advancing the Genetics of Lewy Body Disorders with Disease-Modifying Treatments in Mind.

Adv Genet (Hoboken) · 2022-08-19

DOI: 10.1002/ggn2.202200011PMID: 36911298

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

In this article, a caveat for advancing the genetics of Lewy body disorders is raised, given the nosological controversy about whether to consider dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson's disease (PD) as one entity or two separate entities. Using the framework of the sufficient and component causes model of causation, as further developed into an evolution-based model of causation, it is proposed that a disease of complex etiology is defined as having a relatively high degree of sharing of the component causes (a genetic or environmental factor), that is, a low degree of heterogeneity of the sufficient causes. Based on this definition, only if the sharing of component causes within each of two diseases is similar to their combined sharing can lumping be warranted. However, it is not known whether the separate and combined sharing are similar before conducting the etiologic studies. This means that lumping DLB and PD can be counterproductive as it can decrease the ability to detect component causes despite the potential benefit of conducting studies with larger sample sizes. In turn, this is relevant to the development of disease-modifying treatments, because non-overlapping causal genetic factors may result in distinct pathogenetic pathways providing promising targets for interventions.

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.