SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Discriminating between proposed Brain-First and Body-First Parkinson's disease using conventional and radiomics-enhanced dopamine transporter SPECT image analysis.

NPJ Parkinsons Dis · 2025-11-20

DOI: 10.1038/s41531-025-01164-zPMID: 41266436

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

Two Parkinson's disease subtypes-"Brain-First" and "Body-First"-have been proposed based on putative sites of onset. We examined whether "Body-First" markers relate to more symmetric striatal [123I]-FP-CIT uptake and whether imaging could discriminate the subtypes. In a retrospective cohort of 158 de novo PD patients imaged at diagnosis and followed for six years, patients were classified as "Body-First" if baseline REM sleep behavior disorder, constipation, or neurogenic orthostatic hypotension was present. DaTQUANT provided semiquantitative metrics; a radiomics-based classifier was also trained on DAT-SPECT images. Neither asymmetry indices nor other DaTQUANT measures differed between groups (all p > 0.05). Radiomics showed poor discrimination (AUC ≈ 0.46). Clinically, "Body-First" patients displayed a more adverse course, with higher MCI prevalence and greater MMSE decline and neuropsychiatric burden, whereas motor severity and complications were comparable between groups. These data suggest DAT-SPECT-conventional or radiomics-enhanced-does not separate proposed subtypes at diagnosis, although "Body-First" features forecast worse non-motor progression.

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.