SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Seed amplification assay results illustrate discrepancy in Parkinson's disease clinical diagnostic accuracy and error rates.

J Neurol · 2023-08-17

DOI: 10.1007/s00415-023-11810-2PMID: 37592136

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

Parkinson's disease (PD) may be misdiagnosed due to the clinical overlap between PD and atypical parkinsonism. The utility of α-Synuclein (αSyn) Seed Amplification Assay (SAA) as a diagnostic indicator for PD has been reported in numerous studies, but never when administered as a validated clinical laboratory test. This study compares results from αSyn-SAA validation testing performed using well-characterized cohorts from two biorepositories to better understand the accuracy of PD clinical diagnosis. Blinded cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens from a repository that included cohorts of subjects clinically diagnosed as PD or healthy controls, both with confirmatory dopamine transporter single-photon emission computed tomography (DAT SPECT) imaging, and blinded CSF specimens from a repository that included cohorts of subjects clinically diagnosed as PD or healthy controls based on clinical diagnosis alone, were tested as part of the validation studies for the diagnostic αSyn-SAA test (SYNTap® Biomarker Test). Measured αSyn-SAA test accuracy was 83.9% using clinical diagnosis as comparator, and 93.6% using clinical diagnosis with confirmatory DAT- SPECT imaging as comparator. The statistically significant discordance between accuracy determinations using specimens classified using different diagnostic inclusion criteria indicates that there is some symbiosis between dopamine-weighted imaging and αSyn-SAA results, both of which are associated with higher accuracy compared with the clinical diagnosis alone.

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.