ReviewCell death & disease2025
Are we ready for a biological diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease?
Review in Cell death & 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.
- Reframing welders' parkinsonism: from the "idiopathic" label to biological causation and legal recognition.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Review
- Genetic and Pathological Testing Attitudes for Parkinson's Disease in At-Risk Relatives.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Article
- α-Synuclein-Targeted Immunotherapies in Parkinson's Disease: In Silico, In Vitro and Clinical Perspectives.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Towards a Biologically Defined Diagnosis: Incorporating Pathophysiological Measures Into Parkinson's Disease Clinical Criteria.Parkinson's disease · 2026Review
- Layered classification in Parkinson's disease: a content analysis of clinical, prodromal, and biological criteria evolution.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) is currently based on clinical criteria, centered on the characteristic motor syndrome. However, motor manifestations become evident only after a significant proportion of nigro-striatal dopaminergic neurons have already undergone neurodegeneration. The recent "NSD-ISS" and "SynNeurGe" research frameworks have proposed new biological diagnostic criteria focusing on α-synucleinopathy, neurodegeneration, and genetic biomarkers, independent of clinical manifestations. These proposals intend to detect the disease at a "biologically early phase" to foster advances in research and development of disease-modifying treatments. While the shift to a biological approach is mandatory to better understand PD, challenges to the new frameworks remain, including inherent criticisms, limitations in explaining PD clinical-biological complexity, restricted clinical applicability and related ethical concerns. In this paper, we describe the historical path toward the two biological proposals, explore critical issues and knowledge gaps emerging from them, and discuss the risk of their premature application in the clinical setting.
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.