Home › Research › Biomarkers
A blood-based screening tool for Alzheimer's disease that spans serum and plasma: findings from TARC and ADNI
O'Bryant SE, Xiao G, Barber R, Huebinger R, Wilhelmsen K, Edwards M, Graff-Radford N, Doody R et al.. PloS one, 2011-12-07
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Context There is no rapid and cost effective tool that can be implemented as a front-line screening tool for Alzheimer's disease (AD) at the population level. Objective To generate and cross-validate a blood-based screener for AD that yields acceptable accuracy across both serum and plasma. Design, setting, participants Analysis of serum biomarker proteins were conducted on 197 Alzheimer's disease (AD) participants and 199 control participants from the Texas Alzheimer's Research Consortium (TARC) with further analysis conducted on plasma proteins from 112 AD and 52 control participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). The full algorithm was derived from a biomarker risk score, clinical lab (glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, homocysteine), and demographic (age, gender, education, APOE*E4 status) data. Major outcome measures Alzheimer's disease. Results 11 proteins met our criteria and were utilized for the biomarker risk score. The random forest (RF) biomarker risk score from the TARC serum samples (training set) yielded adequate accuracy in the ADNI plasma sample (training set) (AUC = 0.70, sensitivity (SN) = 0.54 and specificity (SP) = 0.78), which was below that obtained from ADNI cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) analyses (t-tau/Aβ ratio AUC = 0.92). However, the full algorithm yielded excellent accuracy (AUC = 0.88, SN = 0.75, and SP = 0.91). The likelihood ratio of having AD based on a positive test finding (LR+) = 7.03 (SE = 1.17; 95% CI = 4.49-14.47), the likelihood ratio of not having AD based on the algorithm (LR-) = 3.55 (SE = 1.15; 2.22-5.71), and the odds ratio of AD were calculated in the ADNI cohort (OR) = 28.70 (1.55; 95% CI = 11.86-69.47). Conclusions It is possible to create a blood-based screening algorithm that works across both serum and plasma that provides a comparable screening accuracy to that obtained from CSF analyses.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
O'Bryant, S. E., Xiao, G., Barber, R., Huebinger, R., Wilhelmsen, K., Edwards, M., et al. (2011). A blood-based screening tool for Alzheimer's disease that spans serum and plasma: findings from TARC and ADNI. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028092
Vancouver
O'Bryant SE, Xiao G, Barber R, Huebinger R, Wilhelmsen K, Edwards M, et al. A blood-based screening tool for Alzheimer's disease that spans serum and plasma: findings from TARC and ADNI. PloS one. 2011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028092. PMID: 22163278.
BibTeX
@article{obryant2011-22163278,
author = {O'Bryant, S. E. and Xiao, G. and Barber, R. and Huebinger, R. and Wilhelmsen, K. and Edwards, M. and Graff-Radford, N. and Doody, R. and others},
title = {{A blood-based screening tool for Alzheimer's disease that spans serum and plasma: findings from TARC and ADNI}},
journal = {PloS one},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0028092},
pmid = {22163278},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028092}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results 11 proteins met our criteria and were utilized for the biomarker risk score.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Effect sizeAUC = 0.70; AUC = 0.92; AUC = 0.88
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22163278) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “neurofilament”
693 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurofilament”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 693 tagged studies.