Effects of enlarged perivascular space in Parkinson’s disease and related cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The glymphatic system plays a key role in brain toxics clearance. Many studies demonstrated that disrupted glymphatic system is responsible for insufficient clearance of Aβ and tau protein in Alzheimer’s disease. Its contribution in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and related cognitive function decline has not been fully studied. Enlarged perivascular space (PVS) may be a sign of glymphatic function decline, hence leading to PD pathology and PD‐related cognitive function decline. Our objective was to study the PVS in PD and related cognitive function decline. Method High‐resolution T1‐weighted and T2‐weighted MRI data were acquired from 60 PD patients and 58 age‐ and sex‐matched controls. The PVS from the centrum semiovale of the white matter (CS), striatum (ST) and midbrain (MB) of the basal ganglia were segmented using the enhanced images from T1‐ and T2‐weighted images. Total intracranial volumes (TIV) were obtained to account for individual head sizes. Montreal Assessment of Cognition (MoCA) was used to quantify cognitive function. MDS‐UPDRS III scores were obtained for motor function deficits. ANCOVA was used to compare PVS metrics between PD patients and controls adjusted for age, sex, and TIV. Multiple regression was used to corelate PVS metrics and MoCA in PD patients with age, sex, MDS‐UPDRS III score and TIV as covariates. Result Compared to controls, PD patients had enlarged PVS in MB (p = 0.0028), but not in CS and ST. PVS metrics were strongly associated with age (p < 0.0001 for CS, p < 0.0001 for ST, and p = 0.0092 for MB), but only PVS in MB was associated sex (p = 0.0001). In PD patients, the MoCA was associated with the PVS in CS (p = 0.0132), MB (p = 0.0275) and total PVS (p = 0.0088) but only trending with PVS in ST (p = 0.0737). There is no association between MoCA and PVS metrics in controls. Conclusion Our findings suggested that PD patients have enlarged PVS in the midbrain, and their cognitive function is associated with enlarged PVS in both CS and MB. The enlarged PVS might be an etiological factor for PD pathology and related cognitive decline.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".