1. Assessment tools for cognitive performance in Parkinson's disease and its genetic contributors.
- Author
-
Cao LX, Kong WL, Chan P, Zhang W, Morris MJ, and Huang Y
- Abstract
Background: We have shown that genetic factors associating with motor progression of Parkinson's disease (PD), but their roles in cognitive function is poorly understood. One reason is that while cognitive performance in PD can be evaluated by various cognitive scales, there is no definitive guide indicating which tool performs better., Methods: Data were obtained from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative, where cognitive performance was assessed using five cognitive screening tools, including Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Benton Judgment of Line Orientation, Modified Semantic Fluency Test, and Letter Number Sequencing Test, at baseline and subsequent annual follow-up visit for 5 years. Genetic data including ApoE and other PD risk genetic information were also obtained. We used SPSS-receiver operating characteristic and ANOVA repeated measures to evaluate which cognitive assessment is the best reflecting cognitive performance in PD at early stage and over time. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the genetic associations with the rapidity of cognitive decline in PD., Results: SDMT performed better in detecting mild cognitive impairment at baseline (AUC = 0.763), and SDMT was the only tool showing a steady cognitive decline during longitudinal observation. Multigenetic factors significantly associated with cognitive impairment at early stage of the disease (AUC = 0.950) with IP6K2 rs12497850 more evident, and a significantly faster decline (AUC = 0.831) within 5 years after motor onset, particularly in those carrying FGF20 rs591323., Conclusion: SDMT is a preferable cognitive assessment tool for PD and genetic factors synergistically contribute to the cognitive dysfunction in PD., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Cao, Kong, Chan, Zhang, Morris and Huang.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF