% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{vanEimeren:1025640,
      author       = {van Eimeren, Thilo and Giehl, Kathrin and Reetz, Kathrin
                      and Sampaio, Cristina and Mestre, Tiago A.},
      title        = {{N}euroimaging biomarkers in {H}untington's disease:
                      {P}reparing for a new era of therapeutic development},
      journal      = {Parkinsonism $\&$ related disorders},
      volume       = {114},
      issn         = {1353-8020},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2024-03029},
      pages        = {105488 -},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {BackgroundA critical challenge for Huntington's disease
                      (HD) clinical trials in disease modification is the
                      definition of endpoints that can capture change when
                      clinical signs are subtle/non-existent. Reliable biomarkers
                      are therefore urgently needed to facilitate drug development
                      by allowing the enrichment of clinical trial populations and
                      providing measures of benefit that can support the
                      establishment of efficacy.MethodsBy systematically examining
                      the published literature on HD neuroimaging biomarker
                      studies, we sought to advance knowledge to guide the
                      validation of neuroimaging biomarkers. We started by
                      reviewing both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies and
                      then conducted an in-depth review to make quantitative
                      comparisons between biomarkers using data only from
                      longitudinal studies with samples sizes larger than ten
                      participants in PET studies or 30 participants in MRI
                      studies.ResultsFrom a total of 2202 publications initially
                      identified, we included 32 studies, 19 of which underwent
                      in-depth comparative review. The majority of included
                      studies used various MRI-based methods (manual to automatic)
                      to longitudinally assess either the volume of the putamen or
                      the caudate, which have been shown to undergo significant
                      structural change during HD natural
                      history.ConclusionDespite the impressively large number of
                      neuroimaging biomarker studies, only a small number of
                      adequately designed studies met our criteria. Among these
                      various biomarkers, MRI-based volumetric analyses of the
                      caudate and putamen are currently the best validated for use
                      in the disease phase before clinical motor diagnosis. A
                      biomarker that can be used to demonstrate a
                      disease-modifying effect is still missing.},
      cin          = {INM-2},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-2-20090406},
      pnm          = {5252 - Brain Dysfunction and Plasticity (POF4-525) / 5253 -
                      Neuroimaging (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5252 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5253},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {37407343},
      UT           = {WOS:001078735000001},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.parkreldis.2023.105488},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1025640},
}