Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundExcessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a common non-motor symptom in Parkinson's disease (PD) that negatively impacts quality of life. Although biomarkers of brain structure, function, and neurodegeneration have been studied, their interactions in EDS remain unclear. This study explores the relationship between cortical thickness, functional connectivity (FC), and plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels in PD-EDS.Methods36 PD-EDS patients and 100 PD patients without EDS (PD-non-EDS) underwent structural MRI and resting-state FC analysis, with regions of cortical atrophy serving as regions of interest (ROIs). Plasma NfL levels were quantified using high-sensitivity Single Molecule Array (SiMoA™). Mediation analysis was conducted to explore the interplay between NfL levels, neuroimaging markers, and EDS severity, assessed by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS).ResultsPD-EDS patients exhibited significant cortical thinning in the left supramarginal gyrus (SMG) and right postcentral region (PoCR), along with weakened FC between the left SMG and left PoCR, and between the right PoCR and left inferior frontal gyrus (all p p = 0.004) and mediated the relationship between left SMG thickness and EDS severity.ConclusionPlasma NfL levels mediate the association between cortical thinning in the left SMG and EDS severity in PD-EDS, suggesting a link between neurodegenerative processes underlying axonal injury and cortical atrophy in key regions associated with EDS in PD. Our findings suggest that combining neuroimaging markers with plasma NfL levels may provide valuable insights into the mechanisms driving EDS progression in 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.