Biomarkers of Parkinson's disease: Striatal sub-regional structural morphometry and diffusion MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurological disorder that has no reliable biomarkers. The aim of this study was to explore the potential of semi-automated sub-regional analysis of the striatum with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to distinguish PD patients from controls (i.e., as a diagnostic biomarker) and to compare PD patients at different stages of disease. With 3 Tesla MRI, diffusion- and T1-weighted scans were obtained on two occasions in 24 PD patients and 18 age-matched, healthy controls. PD patients completed one session on and the other session off dopaminergic medication. The striatum was parcellated into seven functionally disparate sub-regions. The segmentation was guided by reciprocal connections to distinct cortical regions. Volume, surface-based morphometry, and integrity of white matter connections were calculated for each striatal sub-region. Test-retest reliability of our volume, morphometry, and white matter integrity measures across scans was high, with correlations ranging from r = 0.452, p < 0.05 and r = 0.985, p < 0.001. Global measures of striatum such as total striatum, nucleus accumbens, caudate nuclei, and putamen were not significantly different between PD patients and controls, indicating poor sensitivity of these measures, which average across sub-regions that are functionally heterogeneous and differentially affected by PD, to act as diagnostic biomarkers. Further, these measures did not correlate significantly with disease severity, challenging their potential to serve as progression biomarkers. In contrast, a) decreased volume and b) inward surface displacement of caudal-motor striatumthe region first and most dopamine depleted in PDdistinguished PD patients from controls. Integrity of white matter cortico-striatal connections in caudal-motor and adjacent striatal sub-regions (i.e., executive and temporal striatum) was reduced for PD patients relative to controls. Finally, volume of limbic striatum, the only striatal sub-region innervated by the later-degenerating ventral tegmental area in PD, was reduced in later-stage compared to early stage PD patients a potential progression biomarker. Segmenting striatum based on distinct cortical connectivity provided highly sensitive MRI measures for diagnosing and staging PD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".