Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
AimThe study utilized MRI-derived brain structure age (BSA) to compare global and regional subcortical BSA among healthy controls (HCs), Parkinson's disease (PD) patients with normal cognition (PD-NC), and mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI), identifying regions with accelerated aging and linking altered BSA to native volumes.MethodsWe analyzed structural MRI data from 55 participants (22 HCs, 18 PD-NC, 15 PD-MCI) using the volBrain platform to estimate global and regional subcortical BSA. Group differences in age, global, and regional BSA were tested via Kruskal-Wallis. Follow-up analyses included Pearson correlations for significant regions and ANOVAs where assumptions were met.ResultsNo significant group differences were found for chronological age (p = 0.111) or global BSA (p = 0.143). However, at the regional level, non-parametric analyses revealed significant group differences in the predicted age of the left amygdala (H = 6.42, p = 0.040) and the left basal forebrain (H = 6.01, p 2 ≤ 0.07). The predicted ages of these two regions were highly collinear (r = 0.992). Subsequent parametric tests and Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons on other subcortical regions did not yield any significant differences.ConclusionAccelerated aging appears to be a localized and asymmetric process confined to the limbic-cholinergic network, specifically involving the left amygdala and basal forebrain. Accelerated brain aging in PD is not global but a localized, asymmetric process in the left limbic-cholinergic network. Regional brain-age metrics offer a sensitive biomarker for detecting the specific neurodegeneration linked to cognitive decline.
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.