NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionCognitive decline is common in Parkinson's disease (PD). Calculating personalized risk of cognitive decline in PD would allow for appropriate counseling, early intervention with available treatments, and inclusion in disease-modifying trials.MethodsData were from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative de novo cohort. Baseline scores were calculated for Lifestyle for Brain Health (LIBRA) and the Montreal Parkinson Risk of Dementia Scale (MoPaRDS) per prior literature and preliminary Parkinson's disease Risk Estimator for Decline In Cognition Tool (pPREDICT) by attributing a point for fourteen posited risk factors. Baseline and 5-year follow-up composite cognitive scores (CCSs) were calculated from a neuropsychological battery and used to define cognitive decliners (PD-decline) versus maintainers (PD-maintain).ResultsThe PD-decline group (n = 44) had higher LIBRA (6.76 ± 0.57, p p p n = 263; LIBRA 4.98 ± 0.20, MoPaRDS 1.68 ± 1.16, pPREDICT 3.38 ± 1.69). Area-under-the-curve (AUC) for LIBRA was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.73), MoPaRDS was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.58-0.75) and for pPREDICT was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.61-0.76). In linear regression analyses, LIBRA (p p p p p p ConclusionAlthough MoPaRDS is a PD-specific tool for predicting cognitive decline relying on only clinical features, it does not focus on potentially modifiable risk factors. LIBRA does focus on potentially modifiable risk factors and is associated with prediction of all-cause dementia in some populations, but pPREDICT potentially demonstrates improved performance in cognitive decline risk calculation in individuals with PD and may identify actionable risk factors. As pPREDICT incorporates multiple potentially modifiable risk factors that can be obtained easily in the clinical setting, it is a first step in developing an easily assessable tool for a personalized approach to reduce dementia risk in people with PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.