Distinct brain atrophy progression subtypes underlie phenoconversion in isolated REM sleep behaviour disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Synucleinopathies include a spectrum of disorders varying in features and severity, including idiopathic/isolated REM sleep behaviour disorder (iRBD), Parkinson's disease (PD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Distinct brain atrophy patterns may already be seen in iRBD; however, how brain atrophy begins and progresses remains unclear. METHODS: A multicentric cohort of 1276 participants (451 polysomnography-confirmed iRBD, 142 PD with probable RBD, 87 DLB, and 596 controls) underwent T1-weighted MRI and longitudinal clinical assessments. Brain atrophy was quantified using vertex-based cortical surface reconstruction and volumetric segmentation. The unsupervised machine learning algorithm, Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn), was used to reconstruct spatiotemporal patterns of brain atrophy progression. FINDINGS: SuStaIn identified two distinct subtypes of brain atrophy progression: 1) a "cortical-first" subtype, with atrophy beginning in the frontal lobes and involving the subcortical structures at later stages; and 2) a "subcortical-first" subtype, with atrophy beginning in the limbic areas and involving cortical structures at later stages. Both cortical- and subcortical-first subtypes were associated with a higher rate of increase in MDS-UPDRS-III scores over time, but cognitive decline was subtype-specific, being associated with advancing stages in patients classified as cortical-first but not subcortical-first. Classified patients were more likely to phenoconvert over time compared to stage 0/non-classified patients. Among the 88 patients with iRBD who phenoconverted during follow-up, those classified within the cortical-first subtype had a significantly increased likelihood of developing DLB compared to PD, unlike those classified within the subcortical-first subtype. INTERPRETATION: There are two distinct atrophy progression subtypes in iRBD, with the cortical-first subtype linked to an increased likelihood of developing DLB, while both subtypes were associated with worsening parkinsonian motor features. This underscores the potential utility of subtype identification and staging for monitoring disease progression and patient selection for trials. FUNDING: This study was supported by grants to S.R. from Alzheimer Society Canada (0000000082) and by Parkinson Canada (PPG-2023-0000000122). The work performed in Montreal was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQS), and the W. Garfield Weston Foundation. The work performed in Oxford was funded by Parkinson's UK (J-2101) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The work performed in Prague was funded by the Czech Health Research Council (grant NU21-04-00535) and by The National Institute for Neurological Research (project number LX22NPO5107), financed by the European Union - Next Generation EU. The work performed in Newcastle was funded by the NIHR Newcastle BRC based at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University. The work performed in Paris was funded by grants from the Programme d'investissements d'avenir (ANR-10-IAIHU-06), the Paris Institute of Neurosciences - IHU (IAIHU-06), the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-INBS-0006), Électricité de France (Fondation d'Entreprise EDF), the EU Joint Programme-Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) for the Control-PD Project (Cognitive Propagation in Prodromal Parkinson's disease), the Fondation Thérèse et René Planiol, the Fonds Saint-Michel; by unrestricted support for research on Parkinson's disease from Energipole (M. Mallart) and the Société Française de Médecine Esthétique (M. Legrand); and by a grant from the Institut de France to Isabelle Arnulf (for the ALICE Study). The work performed in Sydney was supported by a Dementia Team Grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council (#1095127). The work performed in Cologne was funded by the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung (grant number 2019_EKES.02), the Köln Fortune Program, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, and the "Netzwerke 2021 Program (Ministry of Culture and Science of Northrhine Westphalia State). The work performed in Aarhus was supported by funding from the Lundbeck Foundation, Parkinsonforeningen (The Danish Parkinson Association), and the Jascha Foundation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".