ArticleJournal of Parkinson's disease2025
Sex-specific progression of Parkinson's disease: A longitudinal mixed-models analysis.
Article in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Latent Representations to Link Disjoint Longitudinal Data for Mixed-Effects Regression.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Sex-Specific Patterns of Taste Dysfunction, Their Relationships with α-Synuclein Profiling, and Supervised Learning-Based Diagnosis in Parkinson's Disease (PD).International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Gender differences in non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease: a multicenter longitudinal study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
- Factors associated with self- perceived speech impairment inFrontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- X chromosome-wide association studies in neurological disorders: uncovering the hidden influence of the X chromosome.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundDespite its relevance, the clinical progression of motor- and non-motor symptoms associated with Parkinson's disease (PD) is poorly described and understood, particularly in relation to sex-specific differences in clinical progression.ObjectiveIdentification of differential aspects in disease progression in men and women with PD.MethodsLinear mixed-model analyses of 802 people with typical PD from the Luxembourg Parkinson's study's prospective cohort (median time of follow-up = three years). We estimated the effect of time and its moderation by sex (alpha ≤ 0.05), including confidence intervals, for the following outcomes: MDS-UPDRS I-IV, Starkstein Apathy Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Sniffin' sticks, bodily discomfort, rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder questionnaire, PD Sleep Scale (PDSS), Munich Dysphagia Test-PD, Functional Mobility Composite Score, and the MDS-based tremor and postural instability and gait disturbances scale. In addition, the marginal means illustrated the symptoms' trajectories in men and women. Men and women had similar age.ResultsOverall, we observed a slower progression (interaction effect) in women compared to men, especially for MoCA (-0.159, 95%CI [-0.272, -0.046], p = 0.006), PDSS (-0.716, 95%CI [-1.229, -0.203], p = 0.006), PIGD (0.133, 95%CI [0.025 0.241], p = 0.016), and MDS-UPDRS II (0.346, 95%CI [0.120, 0.572], p = 0.003). The finding for MDS-UPDRS II was significant (FWER of 5%) after adjustment for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni-Holm).ConclusionsNext to the further exploration of sex-specific progression, interventions, proactive monitoring and communication strategies tailored to the symptoms progression and needs of men and women need to be developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.