This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

46/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 46 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most common form of dementia in the general population, usually relies upon the presence of typical clinical features and structural changes on brain magnetic resonance imaging. Over the last decade, a number of biological abnormalities have been reported in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of AD patients, in particular altered levels of the tau protein and the 1-42 fragment of the amyloid precursor protein. These, however, have not yet proved sensitive and specific enough to be included in the diagnostic criteria for AD, leaving plenty of room for the search of novel biomarkers. The present study describes the analysis of CSF polypeptides by a protein-chip array technology called surface enhanced laser desorption/ionization-time of flight-mass spectrometry (SELDI-TOF-MS). Using this approach, we detected statistically significant quantitative differences (p < 0.05) regarding four overexpressed and one underexpressed polypeptides in the CSF of AD patients as compared to healthy controls. Four of them were further purified by strong anionic exchange chromatography (SAX) and identified by MS analysis as cystatin C, two beta-2-microglobulin isoforms, an unknown 7.7 kDa polypeptide, and a 4.8 kDa VGF polypeptide. The combination of the five polypeptides for the diagnosis of AD allowed to classified six AD patients out of the nine included in this study and all the ten controls, which means in this small cohort that the specificity and sensitivity are 100% and 66%, respectively. This study, based on the protein-chip array technology, demonstrates the presence in the CSF of novel potential biomarkers for AD, which may be used for the diagnosis and perhaps the assessment of the severity and progression of the disease.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Moderate

Using a protein-chip method, the study found five spinal fluid polypeptides that differed significantly between Alzheimer's patients and healthy controls, and the combination classified six of nine Alzheimer's patients. This is an early biomarker study with a very small number of patients, and it does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Carrette, O., Demalte, I., Scherl, A., Yalkinoglu, O., Corthals, G., Burkhard, P., et al. (2003). A panel of cerebrospinal fluid potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Proteomics. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200300470

Vancouver

Carrette O, Demalte I, Scherl A, Yalkinoglu O, Corthals G, Burkhard P, et al. A panel of cerebrospinal fluid potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Proteomics. 2003. doi:10.1002/pmic.200300470. PMID: 12923774.

BibTeX

@article{carrette2003-12923774,
  author  = {Carrette, O. and Demalte, I. and Scherl, A. and Yalkinoglu, O. and Corthals, G. and Burkhard, P. and Hochstrasser, D. F. and Sanchez, J. C.},
  title   = {{A panel of cerebrospinal fluid potential biomarkers for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease}},
  journal = {Proteomics},
  year    = {2003},
  doi     = {10.1002/pmic.200300470},
  pmid    = {12923774},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200300470}
}

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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Using this approach, we detected statistically significant quantitative differences (p < 0.05) regarding four overexpressed and one underexpressed polypeptides in the CSF of AD patients as compared to healthy controls.

Why it matters

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →

Study details

Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 46/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Proteomics)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	PROTEOMICS: journal h-index 211 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	2003 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	6 / 7	Cited 375 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	15.0 citations a year over 25 year(s) since 2003
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 18.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 8 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 18 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Jean‐Charles Sanchez: h-index 77 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	0 / 3	University Hospital of Geneva: institution h-index 635 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12923774)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	46 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

8 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis from nearby years

Also tagged “cerebrospinal”

820 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cerebrospinal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 820 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →