Home › Research › Biomarkers
A new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for neurofilament light in cerebrospinal fluid: analytical validation and clinical evaluation
Lorenzo Gaetani, Kina Höglund, Lucilla Parnetti, Fani Pujol-Calderón, Bruno Becker, Paolo Eusebi, Paola Sarchielli, Paolo Calabresi et al.. Alzheimer s Research & Therapy, 2018-01-23
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Our new NfL ELISA showed a good analytical performance (inter-plate coefficient of variation (CV) < 13%), with no cross-reactivity with neurofilament medium and heavy (NfM and NfH). With respect to the other available ELISAs, CSF NfL showed the same range of values with a strong correlation (r = 0.9984, p < 0.001) between the two methods. CSF NfL levels were significantly higher in MCI-AD/AD-dem and IDD patients as compared with both PD and OND patients. The highest discriminative power was obtained between IDD and OND patients (area under the curve (AUC) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.95). Within the IDD group, CSF NfL positively correlated with several clinical and radiological disease severity parameters. These results show a good analytical performance of the new ELISA for quantification of NfL concentrations in the CSF. CSF NfL is confirmed to be a reliable marker in AD and MS, and a disease-severity marker in MS patients.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gaetani, L., Höglund, K., Parnetti, L., Pujol-Calderón, F., Becker, B., Eusebi, P., et al. (2018). A new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for neurofilament light in cerebrospinal fluid: analytical validation and clinical evaluation. Alzheimer s Research & Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-018-0339-1
Vancouver
Gaetani L, Höglund K, Parnetti L, Pujol-Calderón F, Becker B, Eusebi P, et al. A new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for neurofilament light in cerebrospinal fluid: analytical validation and clinical evaluation. Alzheimer s Research & Therapy. 2018. doi:10.1186/s13195-018-0339-1. PMID: 29370869.
BibTeX
@article{gaetani2018-29370869,
author = {Gaetani, Lorenzo and Höglund, Kina and Parnetti, Lucilla and Pujol-Calderón, Fani and Becker, Bruno and Eusebi, Paolo and Sarchielli, Paola and Calabresi, Paolo and others},
title = {{A new enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for neurofilament light in cerebrospinal fluid: analytical validation and clinical evaluation}},
journal = {Alzheimer s Research \& Therapy},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-018-0339-1},
pmid = {29370869},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-018-0339-1}
}
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
- Our new NfL ELISA showed a good analytical performance (inter-plate coefficient of variation (CV) < 13%), with no cross-reactivity with neurofilament medium and heavy (NfM and NfH).
- With respect to the other available ELISAs, CSF NfL showed the same range of values with a strong correlation (r = 0.9984, p < 0.001) between the two methods.
- CSF NfL levels were significantly higher in MCI-AD/AD-dem and IDD patients as compared with both PD and OND patients.
- The highest discriminative power was obtained between IDD and OND patients (area under the curve (AUC) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.95).
- Within the IDD group, CSF NfL positively correlated with several clinical and radiological disease severity parameters.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants97
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 (Alzheimer s Research & Therapy) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 97 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 29370869) |
| 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 “hydrocephalus”
73 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hydrocephalus”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 73 tagged studies.