ReviewNeuroSci2026
Brain-First vs. Body-First Models in Neurodegenerative Disease: A Perspective Review.
Review in NeuroSci, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Targeting the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis: Emerging Nanomedicine Approaches for Neurodegenerative Diseases.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advances in neurodegenerative disease research increasingly support the existence of multiple trajectory signatures underlying the heterogeneity of cognitive decline syndromes. Originally proposed in Parkinson's disease, the brain-first and body-first models have emerged as conceptual frameworks to explain variability in disease onset, prodromal features, and progression across dementia-related disorders. Brain-first phenotypes are defined by the early emergence of central nervous system pathology and cognitive symptoms, whereas body-first phenotypes are characterized by prominent peripheral or autonomic dysfunctions that precede central involvement. Within this perspective, neurodegeneration is not viewed as a uniform, brain-restricted process, but a dynamic interaction between central, peripheral, and network-level mechanisms. Integrating central and peripheral biomarkers, autonomic physiology, and alterations in functional connectivity provides a coherent framework for interpreting phenotypic heterogeneity and prodromal dysregulation across dementia syndromes. Current evidence supporting brain-first and body-first trajectories is largely associative, and their clinical translation requires rigorous validation. Accordingly, this narrative perspective review aims to provide a critical and integrative conceptual framework that synthesizes existing evidence, identifies unresolved questions, and outlines research priorities for trajectory-based stratification, rather than offering a definitive diagnostic classification or pharmacological evaluation. The present work adopts a conceptual and mechanistic perspective rather than a clinically prescriptive or trial-oriented one. Its aim is to articulate a generative framework capable of producing testable hypotheses about disease trajectories and biomarker constellations across neurodegenerative syndromes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.