Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 21;18(2):e0281987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281987

Cerebral cortical thinning in Parkinson’s disease depends on the age of onset

Kazuhide Seo 1,*, Ichiro Matunari 2, Toshimasa Yamamoto 1
Editor: Niels Bergsland3
PMCID: PMC9942965  PMID: 36809440

Abstract

Patients with older-onset Parkinson’s disease (PD) have more severe motor symptoms, faster progression, and a worse prognosis. The thinning of the cerebral cortex is one of the causes of these issues. Patients with older-onset PD manifest more extended neurodegeneration associated with α-synuclein deposition in the cerebral cortex; however, the cortical regions that undergo thinning are unclear. We aimed to identify cortical regions with different thinning depending on the age of onset in patients with PD. Sixty-two patients with PD were included in this study. Patients with PD onset at <63 years old were included in the early or middle-onset PD group, and those with PD onset at >63 years old were included in the late-onset PD (LOPD) group. Brain magnetic resonance imaging data of these patients were processed using FreeSurfer to measure their cortical thickness. The LOPD group displayed less cortical thickness in the superior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, postcentral gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, temporal pole, paracentral lobule, superior parietal lobule, precuneus, and occipital lobe than the early or middle-onset PD group. Compared with patients with early and middle-onset PD, elderly patients displayed extended cortical thinning with disease progression. Differences in the clinical manifestations of PD according to the age of onset were partly due to variations in the morphological changes in the brain.

Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder caused by the loss of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra; however, its clinical phenotype is complex and heterogeneous [1,2], with differing motor and non-motor symptoms, age of onset, and rate of progression in individual patients. Among these factors, the age of onset may determine the clinical phenotype [36]. The older the patient, the more severe the motor symptoms are, particularly bradykinesia, gait disturbance, postural instability [7,8], and disease progression. Furthermore, older patients are more likely to develop dementia, hallucinations, insomnia, constipation, and olfactory disturbances [8,9] and have a poorer prognosis [10]. These findings suggest a strong relationship between aging and cerebral cortex degeneration. The specific degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra is a pathological hallmark of PD; moreover, neurodegeneration occurs in cortical areas with disease progression. The appearance of Lewy body pathology in the cerebral cortex begins in the anterior medial temporal cortex, followed by the higher sensory association areas, prefrontal cortex, primary association sensory areas, premotor areas, and primary sensory and motor areas [11]. Additionally, neurodegeneration due to cortical α-synuclein deposition is more common in elderly patients with PD [12]. The cortical regions that are more severely affected in such patients have not yet been identified. This necessitates clarifying the relationship between the clinical characteristics and pathophysiology in elderly patients with PD.

FreeSurfer is an open-source software that is used for quantifying and analyzing brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images. A quantitative analysis of brain MRI images was previously performed by manually setting the region of interest for each slice. This requires considerable time and effort, but it cannot analyze the whole brain. With the development of computer technology, researchers have created methods and software for quantitatively analyzing brain MRI. Voxel-based morphometry (VBM) [13] was established in 2000 and is a semi-automatic method that can analyze the whole brain in voxel units. It has been used in brain MRI studies instead of manual methods. FreeSurfer is equipped with surface-based morphometry (SBM), which is specialized for the cortical analysis of brain MRI quantitative analysis methods [14]. SBM is used in brain MRI research and can measure the cortical thickness, cortical surface area, and gyrus in the whole brain unlike VBM.

The purpose of this study was to identify cortical regions with reduced thickness in patients with PD depending on the age of onset by using FreeSurfer as a tool for SBM.

Materials and methods

Subjects

We enrolled 62 patients who met the clinical diagnosis criteria of PD by the Movement Disorder Society [6] and who visited Saitama Medical University Hospital between January 2000 and September 2019. This study was a retrospective study and was approved by the ethical review committee of Saitama Medical University (Approval No. 19074.01). Patients with a history of heavy alcohol consumption; anticancer drug use; psychiatric disorders; neurodegenerative diseases not including PD; and intracranial lesions, such as cerebral infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, and head trauma with the loss of consciousness, were excluded from the study. Patients had one or more MRI examinations under the imaging conditions described in the MRI acquisition. Patients with PD onset at <63 years old were included in the early or middle-onset PD (E-MOPD) group. Patients with PD onset at ≥63 years old were included in the late-onset PD (LOPD) group. The standard age of 63 years old was based on the average age of PD onset in Japanese patients [15]. The age of onset was defined as the time when the patient noticed motor symptoms. The disease duration (years) and levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) [16] were used as indicators of disease progression.

MRI acquisition

We performed MRI examinations by using a 1.5T magnetic resonance system (Magnetom ESSENZA Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany). The acquisition parameters were as follows: 3D magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition gradient echo, head matrix coil, 800 ms inversion time, 1700 ms repetition time, 4 ms time to echo, 12° fractional anisotropy, 230 × 230 field of view, 256 × 256 matrix size, and 1.2 mm slice thickness. MRI examinations were performed 119 times (minimum: once; maximum: five times per patient).

MRI processing

We used MacOS Mojave version 10.14.6 for MRI image processing. FreeSurfer (version 6.0; Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School) was used to estimate and analyze the cortical thickness from 3D T1 images. First, we created an automated cortical model as a preprocessing step. Cortical model creation processing includes motion correction, averaging of multiple T1 images, removal of non-brain tissue, automated Talairach transformation, segmentation of subcortical and deep gray matter volume structures, signal value normalization, gray matter boundary tessellation, automated geometric correction, maximum signal value turning defined as the transition to other tissues, and surface deformation based on signal value gradients that optimally locate gray and white matter boundaries and gray matter cerebrospinal fluid boundaries. The process for estimating the cortical thickness from a complete cortical model includes the registration of the cortical model to a sphere, cortical segmentation and labeling, and the estimation of the cortical thickness from soft and white matter surfaces. The obtained data were subjected to quality control according to the ENIGMA Cortical Quality Control Protocol 2.0 (http://enigma.ini.usc.edu/protocols/imaging-protocols/). No participants were excluded because of excessive superficial or subcortical segmentation errors.

Statistical analyses

Demographic variables

We performed the demographic and clinical statistical analyses using JMP 13.2.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). We tested for group differences in the demographic and clinical variables between the E-MOPD and LOPD groups by using Mann–Whitney pairwise comparisons or Pearson’s chi-squared test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Cortical thickness analyses

Statistical analysis of the cortical thickness was performed using a general linear model in Qdec (http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/QdecGroupAnalysisV6.0) embedded in FreeSurfer. We examined the areas of cerebral cortical thinning in relation to disease progression. Additionally, we investigated between-group differences in the slope of regression lines between the cortical thickness and disease progression. These represented areas had more rapid thinning with disease progression in LOPD than in E-MOPD. S1 Fig provides a schematic of this concept. To remove the effect of age, we used the age of onset as a covariate in the correlation analysis between the clinical course and cortical thickness in each group. The age during MRI imaging was used as a covariate in the intergroup comparison of the correlation between the cortical thickness and clinical course in both groups. Statistical results were corrected for multiple comparisons per cluster by using the Monte Carlo method. All resulting cortical areas were significantly different (p < 0.05).

Results

Demographic variables and clinical information during MRI imaging

There were no significant differences in the demographic variables or clinical information between the E-MOPD and LOPD groups except for age. Table 1 summarizes the demographic variables and clinical information during MRI.

Table 1. Demographic variables and clinical information during MRI imaging.

Variable E-MOPD (n = 31) LOPD (n = 31) Test stats, P-value
Sex, male, n (%) 15 (48.3) 15 (48.3) 0.6113
Mean SD Median Min Max Mean SD Median Min Max
Age, y 62.7 6.8 64 46 72 74.6 4.1 74 67 86 < .0001
Disease duration, y 6.6 3.9 7.1 0.5 15.3 5.5 2.9 5.2 1.1 11.4 0.375
Age of onset, y 55.7 6.0 57 42 63 69.1 4.4 68 64 79
LEDD, mg 532.4 271.8 510 0 1069 476.7 286.3 450 0 1335 0.331

LEDD, levodopa equivalent daily dose; SD, Standard deviation; E-MOPD, early or middle-onset Parkinson’s disease; and LOPD, late-onset Parkinson’s disease.

There were no significant differences in the demographic variables or clinical information between the groups, except that the E-MOPD group was younger than the LOPD group.

Correlation between cortical thickness and disease progression

Correlation between cortical thickness and disease progression in all patients

By using the disease duration as an index of disease progression, we observed significant negative correlations between the cortical thickness and disease progression in the bilateral superior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, postcentral gyrus, paracentral lobule, and right occipital lobe (p < 0.05) (Fig 1). Similarly, by using LEDD as an index of disease progression, we recorded significant negative correlations between the cortical thickness and disease progression in the bilateral precentral gyrus, paracentral lobule, superior parietal lobule, precuneus, and occipital lobule (p < 0.05) (Fig 1). S1 Table outlines the identified clusters. The cluster information includes coordinates of the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) displaying the maximum -log10 p-value in the identified cluster, cortical area (anatomical location of MNI coordinates), cluster size (mm2), and clusterwise p-value (p-value for each cluster).

Fig 1. Areas of cortical thinning with disease progression in all patients.

Fig 1

Color maps indicate areas with significant thinning (p < 0.05). LEDD, levodopa equivalent daily dose.

Correlation between cortical thickness and disease progression in E-MOPD and LOPD

When using the disease duration as an index of disease progression, there were significant negative correlations between the cortical thickness and disease progression in the superior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, central precentral gyrus, central posterior gyrus, and bilateral paracentral lobule of the E-MOPD and in the superior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, central precentral gyrus, central posterior gyrus, paracentral lobule, precuneus, and bilateral occipital lobe bilaterally of the LOPD group (p < 0.05) (Fig 2). When using LEDD as an index of disease progression, there was no significant correlation in the E-MOPD group (Fig 2). By contrast, the LOPD group displayed significant negative correlations between the cortical thickness and disease progression in the superior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, postcentral gyrus, paracentral lobule, superior parietal lobule, precuneus, occipital lobe, and left superior temporal gyrus on both sides (p < 0.05) (Fig 2). S2 and S3 Tables present information on the identified clusters.

Fig 2. Correlation between cortical thickness and disease progression in E-MOPD and LOPD.

Fig 2

(a) Areas of cortical thinning with prolonged disease duration. (b) Areas of cortical thickness thinning with an increase in LEDD. LEDD, levodopa equivalent daily dose; E-MOPD, early or middle-onset Parkinson’s disease; and LOPD, late-onset Parkinson’s disease.

Between-group differences in the slope of regression lines between cortical thickness and disease progression

When using the disease duration as an index of disease progression, the precuneus displayed more rapid cortical thinning in the LOPD group than in the E-MOPD group (p < 0.05) (Fig 3). When using LEDD as an index of disease progression, the bilateral superior temporal gyrus, paracentral lobule, superior parietal lobule, occipital lobule, right superior frontal gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, temporal pole, left precentral gyrus, left postcentral gyrus, and precuneus revealed more rapid cortical thinning in the LOPD group than in the E-MOPD group (p < 0.05) (Fig 3). There were no areas of rapid cortical thinning in the E-MOPD group compared with the LOPD group. S4 Table presents information on the identified clusters.

Fig 3. Areas of rapid cortical thinning in the LOPD and E-MOPD groups (p < 0.05).

Fig 3

LEDD, levodopa equivalent daily dose; E-MOPD, early or middle-onset Parkinson’s disease; and LOPD, late-onset Parkinson’s disease.

Discussion

This is the first study to capture age-dependent differences in cortical thinning during disease progression in PD. The LOPD group displayed more extensive cortical thinning with disease progression than the E-MOPD group.

Several reports have been published on the relationship between the clinical symptoms of PD and cortical thinning. In terms of motor symptom severity, bradykinesia is associated with the thinning of the parietotemporal sensory association area [17]. Postural instability is associated with thinning of the cuneus and precuneus [18], whereas tremor is associated with the thinning of a wide range of cortical regions, including the bilateral middle frontal gyrus, left orbitofrontal cortex, bilateral cingulate gyrus, left middle temporal gyrus, left lateral temporal gyrus, left inferior parietal lobule, and left occipital gyrus [19]. Among non-motor symptoms, cognitive dysfunction and psychiatric symptoms are closely related to cerebral cortex atrophy. PD with mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI) is characterized by the thinning of the parietal and occipital cortices compared with PD without dementia. When combined with the thinning of the frontal cortex, PD-MCI reportedly progresses to PD with dementia [2023]. Patients with PD-MCI without the thinning of the parietal and occipital lobes recover normal cognitive function, but those with thinning of the aforementioned areas do not [21]. Cognitive domain–specific reports have demonstrated that attention and executive function deficits were correlated with the thinning of frontal regions [22,24]. Moreover, visuospatial cognitive deficits were correlated with the thinning of the parietal and occipital lobes [20]. Radziunas et al. [25] and Kubera et al. [26] mentioned that impulse control disorder is correlated with the thinning of the inferior frontal gyrus, superior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate gyrus, and precentral gyrus in PD. A study of the correlation between psychological symptoms and cortical thinning in patients with PD, as assessed by the Caregiver-Administered Neuropsychiatric Inventory, demonstrated that nocturnal behavior and irritability were correlated with frontal cortex thinning, aggression and agitation with temporal lobe thinning, and apathy with insular cortex thinning [27].

In this study, we found that the LOPD group had cortical regions with more rapid thinning than the E-MOPD group. Among all cortical areas that displayed more rapid cortical thinning in the LOPD group, the superior temporal gyrus, temporal pole, paracentral lobule, superior parietal lobule, precuneus, and occipital lobe were reportedly associated with bradykinesia [17], the precuneus and occipital lobe were associated with postural instability [18,19], and extensive cortices from the frontal to the parietal and occipital lobes were associated with cognitive dysfunction [2023]. The pattern of cortical thinning observed in the current study may be explained by the pathophysiology underlying the clinical features of elderly patients with PD, such as α-synuclein deposition in elderly patients [12]. The serum level of uric acid, which is an antioxidant, is reportedly low in patients with PD; this situation may be attributed to the weakening of the neuroprotective mechanisms of the body [28]. In addition to α-synuclein deposition, amyloid-β deposition is also observed in older patients with PD and may contribute to the difference in thinning depending on the age of onset [29,30]. The cause of rapid PD progression in elderly patients has not yet been clarified. However, this clarification will likely lead to the development of therapies that inhibit disease progression.

A limitation of this study was its retrospective nature because it made the acquisition of motor and non-motor symptoms difficult in a standardized manner. Therefore, we were unable to analyze the relationship between cortical thinning and the characteristics of motor symptoms, such as tremor, bradykinesia, and postural instability, as well as non-motor symptoms, such as cognitive dysfunction and autonomic symptoms. Although it is desirable to standardize the number of MRI scans for patients, this study had a retrospective design and could not be standardized.

Conclusion

Patients with older-onset PD demonstrated more extensive areas of reduced cortical thickness compared with those with early and middle-onset PD. Furthermore, patients with older-onset PD had cortical areas with more rapid thinning. Therefore, brain structural MRI with automated cortical thickness analysis may provide clues for a better understanding of age-related structural changes in patients with PD in an objective manner, which may be related to the underlying pathophysiology.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. A schematic image depicting the difference in the slope of regression lines between the E-MOPD and LOPD groups.

E-MOPD, early or middle-onset Parkinson’s disease; LOPD, late-onset Parkinson’s disease.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Information on the identified clusters in Fig 1.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Information on the identified clusters in Fig 2(A).

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Information on the identified clusters in Fig 2(B).

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Information on the identified clusters in Fig 3.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for the English language editing.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Berg D, Postuma RB, Bloem B, Chan P, Dubois B, Gassere T, et al. Time to redefine PD? Introductory statement of the MDS Task Force on the definition of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2014. Apr;29(4):454–462. doi: 10.1002/mds.25844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fereshtehnejad SM, Zeighami Y, Dagher A, Postuma RB. Clinical criteria for subtyping Parkinson’s disease: biomarkers and longitudinal progression, Brain. 2017. Jul;140(7):1959–1976. doi: 10.1093/brain/awx118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lewis SJ, Foltynie T, Blackwell AD, Robbins TW, Owen AM, Barker RA. Heterogeneity of Parkinson’s disease in the early clinical stages using a data driven approach. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005. Mar;76(3):343–348. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2003.033530 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Reijnders JS, Ehrt U, Lousberg R, Aarsland D, Leentjens AF. The association between motor subtypes and psychopathology in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2009. Jun;15(5):379–382. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2008.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Liu P, Feng T, Wang YJ, Zhang X, Chen B. Clinical heterogeneity in patients with early-stage Parkinson’s disease: a cluster analysis. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011. Sep;12(9):694–703. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B1100069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Postuma RB, Berg D, Stern M, Poewe W, Olanow CW, Oertel W, et al. MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2015. Oct;30(12):1591–1601. doi: 10.1002/mds.26424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wickremaratchi MM, Ben-Shlomo Y, Morris HR. The effect of onset age on the clinical features of Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol. 2009. Apr;16(4):450–456. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02514.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Keezer MR, Wolfson C, Postuma RB. Age, Gender, Comorbidity, and the MDS-UPDRS: Results from a Population-Based Study. Neuroepidemiology. 2016;46(3):222–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhou MZ, Gan J, Wei YR, Ren XY, Chen W, Liu ZG. The association between non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease and age at onset. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013. Oct;115(10):2103–2107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kempster PA O’Sullivan SS, Holton JL, Revesz T, Lees AJ. Relationships between age and late progression of Parkinson’s disease: a clinico-pathological study. Brain. 2010. Jun;133(Pt 6):1755–1762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Braak H, Del Tredici K, Rub U, de Vos RA, Jansen Steur EN, Braak E. Staging of brain pathology related to sporadic Parkinson’s disease. Neurobiol Aging. 2003;24: 197–211. doi: 10.1016/s0197-4580(02)00065-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Selikhova M, Williams DR, Kempster PA, Holton JL, Revesz T, Lees AJ. A clinico-pathological study of subtypes in Parkinson’s disease. Brain. 2009. Nov;132(Pt 11):2947–2957. doi: 10.1093/brain/awp234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ashburner J, Friston KJ. Voxel-based morphometry—the methods. Neuroimage. 2000. Jun;11(6 Pt 1):805–821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fischl B, Dale AM. Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000. Sep;97(20):11050–11055. doi: 10.1073/pnas.200033797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Taniguchi A, Narita Y, Naito Y, Kuzuhara S. Analysis of application form for Parkinson’s disease provided by the specific diseases treatment research program of Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan. Rinsho Shinkeigaku. 2008. Feb;48(2):106–113. doi: 10.5692/clinicalneurol.48.106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tomlinson CL, Stowe R, Patel S, Rick C, Gray R, Clarke CE. Systematic review of levodopa dose equivalency reporting in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2010. Nov;25(15):2649–2653. doi: 10.1002/mds.23429 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lyoo CH, Ryu YH, Lee MS. Cerebral cortical areas in which thickness correlates with severity of motor deficits of Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol. 2011. Oct;258(10):1871–1876. doi: 10.1007/s00415-011-6045-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Herb JN, Rane S, Isaacs DA, Van Wouwe N, Roman OC, Landman BA, et al. Cortical Implications of Advancing Age and Disease Duration in Parkinson’s Disease Patients with Postural Instability and Gait Dysfunction. J Parkinsons Dis. 2016. May 5;6(2):441–451. doi: 10.3233/JPD-150753 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Benito-Leon J, Serrano JI, Louis ED, Holobar A, Romero JP, Povalej-Brzan P, et al. Tremor severity in Parkinson’s disease and cortical changes of areas controlling movement sequencing: A preliminary study. J Neurosci Res. 2018. Aug;96(8):1341–1352. doi: 10.1002/jnr.24248 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Garcia-Diaz AI, Segura B, Baggio HC, Uribe C, Campabadal A, Abos A, et al. Cortical thinning correlates of changes in visuospatial and visuoperceptual performance in Parkinson’s disease: A 4-year follow-up. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2018. Jan;46:62–68. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chung SJ, Park YH, Yoo HS, Lee YH, Ye BS, Sohn YH, et al. Mild cognitive impairment reverters have a favorable cognitive prognosis and cortical integrity in Parkinson’s disease. Neurobiol Aging. 2019. Jun;78:168–177. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.02.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chung SJ, Yoo HS, Lee YH, Lee HS, Ye BS, Sohn YH, et al. Frontal atrophy as a marker for dementia conversion in Parkinson’s disease with mild cognitive impairment. Hum Brain Mapp. 2019. Sep;40(13):3784–3794. doi: 10.1002/hbm.24631 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gasca-Salas C, Garcia-Lorenzo D, Garcia-Garcia D, Clavero P, Obeso JA, Lehericy S, et al. Parkinson’s disease with mild cognitive impairment: severe cortical thinning antedates dementia. Brain Imaging Behav. 2019. Feb;13(1):180–188. doi: 10.1007/s11682-017-9751-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhang L, Wang M, Sterling NW, Lee EY, Eslinger PJ, Wagner D, et al. Cortical Thinning and Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease without Dementia. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2018. Mar-Apr;15(2):570–580. doi: 10.1109/TCBB.2015.2465951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Radziunas A, Deltuva VP, Tamasauskas A, Gleizniene R, Pranckeviciene A, Petrikonis K, et al. Brain MRI morphometric analysis in Parkinson’s disease patients with sleep disturbances. BMC Neurol. 2018. Jun;18(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12883-018-1092-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kubera KM, Schmitgen MM, Nagel S, Hess K, Herweh C, Hirjak D, et al. A search for cortical correlates of trait impulsivity in Parkinsons disease. Behav Brain Res. 2019. Sep;369:111911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ye BS, Jeon S, Yoon S, Kang SW, Baik K, Lee Y, et al. Effects of dopaminergic depletion and brain atrophy on neuropsychiatric symptoms in de novo Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018. Feb;89(2):197–204. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2017-316075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Schirinzi T, Di Lazzaro G, Sancesario GM, Summa S, Petrucci S, Colona VL, et al. Young-onset and late-onset Parkinson’s disease exhibit a different profile of fluid biomarkers and clinical features. Neurobiol Aging. 2010. Jun;90:119–124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jellinger KA, Seppi K, Wenning GK, Poewe W. Impact of coexistent Alzheimer pathology on the natural history of Parkinson’s disease. J N Transm (Vienna). 2002. Mar;109(3):329–339. doi: 10.1007/s007020200027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mastaglia FL, Johnsen RD, Byrnes ML, Kakulas BA. Prevalence of amyloid-beta deposition in the cerebral cortex in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2003. Jan;18(1):81–86. doi: 10.1002/mds.10295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Niels Bergsland

11 Aug 2022

PONE-D-21-33205Cerebral cortical thinning in Parkinson's disease depends on the age of onsetPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. seo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Although the Reviewers had conflicting decisions on your manuscript, I have opted to render a decision of Major Revisions. Please carefully address the points that have been raised. In addition to those listed by the Reviewers, there were a few aspects that were not clear to me. For example, was the enrollment period really nearly 20 years long? If so, it seems likely that there would have been major scanner changes throughout the course of the study. It is not clear how this would have affected the results. In addition, it is not clear what was done for patients with multiple scans, since the work presented seems to be cross-sectional in nature.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 25 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Niels Bergsland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The aim of the present study is to identify cortical regions with different thinning depending on the age of onset in patients with PD. Sixty-two patients with PD were included in this study. The present manuscript is interesting. However, I have some concerns:

1. This appears to be a retrospective study, have the authors any intention of conducting a prospective one more aligned with their hypotheses?. How did the authors arrive at the study size of 62? It was not clear from the text.

2. It is not clear why the authors divided the PD group in younger and older. Why authors have opted to 63 years and not 40 years, 55 years?

3. An important concern is about the fact that the authors did not compare PD groups to age- and sex-matched healthy controls.

4. The specificity of these imaging results in terms of clinical meaning or physiopathology of PD is unclear: age or other factors may explain the results.

5. There is little mention of the existing extensive literature about the changes and progression of expression of the morphological and functional changes in the brain related to the age of onset in PD with both MRI and PET.

Reviewer #2: Appendix tables arent properly labeled.

The correlation presented with disease duration has no context as far as duration from diagnosed or personal notice.

Were there any other clinical information, such as UPDRS or Hoehn-Yahr correlated with the significant differences? Otherwise the impact is limited.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 21;18(2):e0281987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281987.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 Dec 2022

I wish to re-submit the manuscript titled “Cerebral cortical thinning in Parkinson’s disease depends on the age of onset.” The manuscript ID is PONE-D-21-33205.

We thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights. The manuscript has benefited from these insightful suggestions. I look forward to working with you and the reviewers to move this manuscript closer to publication in the PLOS ONE.

The manuscript has been rechecked, and the necessary changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to all comments have been prepared and attached herewith/given below. The changes made to the manuscript are indicated in red font color.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_letter.doc

Decision Letter 1

Niels Bergsland

7 Feb 2023

Cerebral cortical thinning in Parkinson’s disease depends on the age of onset

PONE-D-21-33205R1

Dear Dr. seo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Niels Bergsland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Niels Bergsland

10 Feb 2023

PONE-D-21-33205R1

Cerebral cortical thinning in Parkinson’s disease depends on the age of onset

Dear Dr. seo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Niels Bergsland

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. A schematic image depicting the difference in the slope of regression lines between the E-MOPD and LOPD groups.

    E-MOPD, early or middle-onset Parkinson’s disease; LOPD, late-onset Parkinson’s disease.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Information on the identified clusters in Fig 1.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Information on the identified clusters in Fig 2(A).

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Information on the identified clusters in Fig 2(B).

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Information on the identified clusters in Fig 3.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_letter.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES