Home › Research › Biomarkers
Amyloid-β 42/40 cerebrospinal fluid concentration ratio in the diagnostics of Alzheimer's disease: validation of two novel assays
Lewczuk P, Lelental N, Spitzer P, Maler JM, Kornhuber J.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2015-01-01
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Background The increasing role of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is reflected in recently published diagnostic and/or research criteria. A growing body of evidence suggests better diagnostic performance of the amyloid-β (Aβ)42/40 CSF concentration ratio compared to the Aβ42 concentration alone. Objective (a) to analytically validate two novel ELISAs capable to measure Aβ1-40 and Aβ1-42 in the CSF, and (b) to compare the diagnostic accuracies of Aβ1-42 and Aβ42/40 ratio. Methods In this study, (a) the novel Aβ1-40 and Aβ1-42 ELISAs (IBL International GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) have been analytically validated, and (b) a clinical study has been performed comparing the diagnostic performance of the CSF Aβ42/40 concentration ratio and the CSF Aβ42 concentration. Results In the analytical part of the study, only marginal cross-reactivity (Aβ1-42 versus Aβ1-40) was observed; recoveries were in the range of 85-100% for the samples diluted 1 : 20-1 : 640 (Aβ1-40), and 92-104% for the samples diluted 1 : 20-1 : 320 (Aβ1-42). For Aβ1-40, the intra-assay imprecision was 2.1%, the inter-assay imprecision was 4.4%, and the inter-lot imprecision was 5.4 %. For Aβ1-42, the numbers were 3.1%, 6.2%, and 6.9%, respectively. The goodness of the fit of the average standard curves was >0.99 for both assays, and the imprecision of the optical densities in ten repetitions of the standard curves was ≤5% for all standards. In the clinical part, at the cut off value 691 pg/mL, Aβ1-42 showed sensitivity and specificity of 69.3% and 88.9%, respectively, whereas at the cut off value 0.06, the Aβ42/40 ratio showed significantly improved performance with sensitivity and specificity of 93.3% and 100%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve for Aβ42/40 (0.974) was highly significantly larger compared to Aβ1-42 concentration ROC curve (0.827, p < 0.0001). Conclusions (a) the novel Aβ1-40 and Aβ1-42 ELISA assays characterize with very good analytical performance; (b) we reconfirm that the CSF Aβ42/40 concentration ratio shows significantly better diagnostic performance compared to the CSF Aβ1-42 concentration alone.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lewczuk, P., Lelental, N., Spitzer, P., Maler, J. M., & Kornhuber, J. (2015). Amyloid-β 42/40 cerebrospinal fluid concentration ratio in the diagnostics of Alzheimer's disease: validation of two novel assays. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-140771
Vancouver
Lewczuk P, Lelental N, Spitzer P, Maler JM, Kornhuber J. Amyloid-β 42/40 cerebrospinal fluid concentration ratio in the diagnostics of Alzheimer's disease: validation of two novel assays. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2015. doi:10.3233/jad-140771. PMID: 25079805.
BibTeX
@article{lewczuk2015-25079805,
author = {Lewczuk, P. and Lelental, N. and Spitzer, P. and Maler, J. M. and Kornhuber, J.},
title = {{Amyloid-β 42/40 cerebrospinal fluid concentration ratio in the diagnostics of Alzheimer's disease: validation of two novel assays}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.3233/jad-140771},
pmid = {25079805},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-140771}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- A growing body of evidence suggests better diagnostic performance of the amyloid-β (Aβ)42/40 CSF concentration ratio compared to the Aβ42 concentration alone.
- Results In the analytical part of the study, only marginal cross-reactivity (Aβ1-42 versus Aβ1-40) was observed; recoveries were in the range of 85-100% for the samples diluted 1 : 20-1 : 640 (Aβ1-40), and 92-104% for the samples diluted 1 : 20-1 : 320 (Aβ1-42).
- In the clinical part, at the cut off value 691 pg/mL, Aβ1-42 showed sensitivity and specificity of 69.3% and 88.9%, respectively, whereas at the cut off value 0.06, the Aβ42/40 ratio showed significantly improved performance with sensitivity and specificity of 93.3% and 100%, respectively.
- The area under the ROC curve for Aβ42/40 (0.974) was highly significantly larger compared to Aβ1-42 concentration ROC curve (0.827, p < 0.0001).
- Conclusions (a) the novel Aβ1-40 and Aβ1-42 ELISA assays characterize with very good analytical performance; (b) we reconfirm that the CSF Aβ42/40 concentration ratio shows significantly better diagnostic performance compared to the CSF Aβ1-42 concentration alone.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Effect size2.1%; 4.4%; 3.1%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 25079805) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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 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.