SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Plasma mir-203a-3p as a Novel Diagnostic Biomarker in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease Dementia

· 2024-01-09

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202401.0410.v2

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

The early detection of cognitive decline and timely non-pharmacological management or drug therapy are extremely important in providing care for Parkinson’s disease with dementia (PDD). In this study, we first conducted a discovery study to identify six plasma microRNAs that may allow for the differentiation of PD with or without mild cognitive impairment via NGS. A total of 120 participants were further recruited in a validation cohort and divided into four subgroups, namely, normal controls (HC), PD with no dementia (PDND), PD with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) and PDD. Among the six candidates, miR-203a-3p was successfully detected in the plasma of the validation cohort using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). Our results show that the ratio of miR-203a-3p/miR-16-5p observed in PDD was significantly increased compared to in PD-MCI (p < 0.001) and PDND (p = 0.041). Moreover, the ratio of miR-203a-3p/miR-16-5p showed a significant correlation with MoCA scores (r = -0.237, p = 0.024) in patients with PD (PwP). The ROC curve of the logistic regression model, consisting of the variables of age, the ratio of miR-203a-3p/miR-16-5p and the UPDRS III score, also demonstrated an average AUC of 0.883 via 5-fold cross-validation. In conclusion, the ratio of miR-203a-3p/miR-16-5p may serve as a potential biomarker for distinguishing cognitive dysfunction from PwP.

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.