SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Association of the Naples prognostic score with Parkinson disease risk: a prospective cohort study.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2026-04-30

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2026.1809301PMID: 42147459

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

BackgroundThe Naples prognostic score (NPS), derived from routine inflammatory and nutritional biomarkers, reflects systemic immune-metabolic status. Its prospective association with Parkinson disease (PD) risk has not been well established.MethodsWe analyzed 317,035 UK Biobank participants recruited in 2006-2010 who were free of PD and malignancy at baseline and had complete NPS component data. NPS was derived from serum albumin, total cholesterol, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio. Incident PD through 31 December 2022 was identified using a validated algorithm. Associations were examined using Cox proportional hazards models with multivariable adjustment.ResultsOver a median follow-up of 13.94 years, 2,298 participants (0.72%) developed PD. Higher NPS was significantly associated with increased PD risk. After multivariable adjustment, each 1-point increase in NPS corresponded to a 13% higher risk (Model 2 adjusted HR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.07-1.19, p p p for trend ConclusionIn this large prospective cohort, higher NPS was independently associated with increased PD risk. These findings support the potential role of integrated inflammatory-nutritional status in PD development and suggest that NPS may serve as a readily available marker for risk stratification.

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.