SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Nuclear Imaging of Parkinsonian Disorders: Where do we go from here?

Curr Neuropharmacol · 2024-01-01

DOI: 10.2174/1570159x21666230801140648PMID: 37533246

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Parkinsonian disorders are a heterogeneous group of incurable neurodegenerative diseases that significantly reduce quality of life and constitute a substantial economic burden. Nuclear imaging (NI) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have played and continue to play a key role in research aimed at understanding and monitoring these disorders. MRI is cheaper, more accessible, nonirradiating, and better at measuring biological structures and hemodynamics than NI. NI, on the other hand, can track molecular processes, which may be crucial for the development of efficient diseasemodifying therapies. Given the strengths and weaknesses of NI and MRI, how can they best be applied to Parkinsonism research going forward? This review aims to examine the effectiveness of NI and MRI in three areas of Parkinsonism research (differential diagnosis, prodromal disease identification, and disease monitoring) to highlight where they can be most impactful. Based on the available literature, MRI can assist with differential diagnosis, prodromal disease identification, and disease monitoring as well as NI. However, more work is needed, to confirm the value of MRI for monitoring prodromal disease and predicting phenoconversion. Although NI can complement or be a substitute for MRI in all the areas covered in this review, we believe that its most meaningful impact will emerge once reliable Parkinsonian proteinopathy tracers become available. Future work in tracer development and high-field imaging will continue to influence the landscape for NI and MRI.

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.