SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Challenging selective vulnerability in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

· 2026-05-15

DOI: 10.64898/2026.05.13.724902

Open accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Selective vulnerability is widely assumed in Parkinson’s disease (PD), but whether dopaminergic neurons of the substantia nigra are uniquely vulnerable has not been established. Explanations of neuronal degeneration in Parkinson’s disease often centre on the distinctive properties of substantia nigra dopaminergic neurons. Whether these properties are necessary for substantial neuronal loss remains unclear. We preregistered a systematic review of 166 post-mortem case-control studies published between 1963 and 2025 and synthesised neuronal counts and densities from 152 studies using a multilevel meta-analysis. After six decades, only 18% of countable brain atlas labels had been examined, and most populations were represented by a single study. Substantial loss beyond dopaminergic and classically pigmented populations shows that neither dopaminergic identity nor neuromelanin is necessary for marked degeneration, challenging key tenets of selective vulnerability in PD. Comparisons across other anatomical and physiological features remain limited by sparse sampling and uncertainty. We identify less-studied populations with substantial estimated loss and estimate the additional sampling needed to improve precision under specified assumptions. These findings direct replication and comparative counting towards uncertainties that limit explanations of neuronal loss across affected and potentially spared populations.

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.