Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38969680›Full record

ReviewNature communications2024

Neuroimaging and fluid biomarkers in Parkinson's disease in an era of targeted interventions.

Angeliki Zarkali, George E C Thomas, Henrik Zetterberg, Rimona S Weil

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

65 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. What's in a name? reframing advanced Parkinson's disease as a multidimensional state.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Angeliki ZarkaliDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, UK. a.zarkali@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2808-072X
George E C ThomasDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6107-0326
Henrik ZetterbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden.
Rimona S WeilDementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5092-6325

Funding

Alzheimer's Research UK (ARUK) 2021B-001Wellcome Trust 205167/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust (Wellcome) 225263/Z/22/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major challenge in Parkinson's disease is the variability in symptoms and rates of progression, underpinned by heterogeneity of pathological processes. Biomarkers are urgently needed for accurate diagnosis, patient stratification, monitoring disease progression and precise treatment. These were previously lacking, but recently, novel imaging and fluid biomarkers have been developed. Here, we consider new imaging approaches showing sensitivity to brain tissue composition, and examine novel fluid biomarkers showing specificity for pathological processes, including seed amplification assays and extracellular vesicles. We reflect on these biomarkers in the context of new biological staging systems, and on emerging techniques currently in development.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBrainExtracellular VesiclesNeuroimagingParkinson DiseaseDisease ProgressionHumansBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID38969680
PMCPMC11226684

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.