Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Genetics and APOE

Results Over 2 years, depression scores were significantly worse for heterozygous carriers (mean baseline, 0.65; mean follow-up, 2.88; P = .01), rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder scores were significantly worse for patients with GD (mean baseline, 0.93; mean follow-up, 2.93; P < .001) and heterozygotes (mean baseline, 0.10; mean follow-up, 2.30; P < .001), and UPDRS part III scores were significantly worse for patients with GD (mean baseline, 4.29; mean follow-up, 7.82; P < .001) and heterozygotes (mean baseline, 1.97; mean follow-up, 4.50; P < .001). For controls, there was a small but significant deterioration in the UPDRS part II (activities of daily living) score (mean baseline, 0.00; mean follow-up, 0.58; P = .006). At 2 years, olfactory and cognitive assessment scores were lower in patients with GD and heterozygotes compared with controls, but they did not differ significantly from baseline. When the results from the patients with GD and the heterozygotes were combined, a significant deterioration from baseline was observed, as reflected in the Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Behaviour Disorder Questionnaire (mean baseline, 0.51; mean follow-up, 2.63; P < .001), Beck Depression Inventory (mean baseline, 1.72; mean follow-up, 4.44; P = .002), and UPDRS part II (mean baseline, 0.88; mean follow-up, 2.01; P < .001) and part III scores (mean baseline, 3.09; mean follow-up, 6.10; P < .001) (all P < .01), and at 2 years, significant differences in University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and UPDRS part II and part III scores were observed between patients with GD/heterozygotes and controls (all P < .05). Conclusions and relevance This study indicates that, as a group, GBA mutation-positive individuals show a deterioration in clinical markers consistent with the prodrome of PD.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 43/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 25 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 43 of 100. Total 43 of 100.25 of the 58 points we could judge = 43 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25506732)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 25 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total 43 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Beavan, M., McNeill, A., Proukakis, C., Hughes, D. A., Mehta, A., & Schapira, A. H. (2015). Evolution of prodromal clinical markers of Parkinson disease in a GBA mutation-positive cohort. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.2950

Vancouver

Beavan M, McNeill A, Proukakis C, Hughes DA, Mehta A, Schapira AH. Evolution of prodromal clinical markers of Parkinson disease in a GBA mutation-positive cohort. JAMA neurology. 2015. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.2950. PMID: 25506732.

BibTeX

@article{beavan2015-25506732,
  author  = {Beavan, M. and McNeill, A. and Proukakis, C. and Hughes, D. A. and Mehta, A. and Schapira, A. H.},
  title   = {{Evolution of prodromal clinical markers of Parkinson disease in a GBA mutation-positive cohort}},
  journal = {JAMA neurology},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.2950},
  pmid    = {25506732},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.2950}
}

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging

Also in Brain scans and imaging

114 studies in the library are filed under Brain scans and imaging with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Brain scans and imaging hub.

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →