This is all very interesting BUT …
I’ve just had a quick look at the paper but it doesn’t seem clear what they mean by “early” — when neurologists think a patient has PD when …? when they’re exhibiting motor abnormalities? Sorry, but I personally wouldn’t call this early — we do know that in many cases patients can display non-motor symptoms up to a decade or more before they’re starting to be seen by a neurologist — shouldn’t this alternative time be called early instead? By the time people start seeing neurologists a lot of damage has already occurred. Shouldn’t we be prioritising other indicators or risk factors — eye movement tremors, or diabetes — the first a direct sign, the latter a highly significant (Hazard Ratio about 9) risk factor — combine the latter with a questionnaire measure of non-motor symptoms and we’d be doing well.
I’m happy for neurologists finally having a chemical test to “confirm” diagnoses but …