Home › Research › Biomarkers
Antemortem CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio predicts Alzheimer's disease pathology better than Aβ42 in rapidly progressive dementias
Simone Baiardi, Samir Abu-Rumeileh, Marcello Rossi, Corrado Zenesini, Anna Bartoletti-Stella, Barbara Polischi, Sabina Capellari, Piero Parchi. Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2018-12-14
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
The score reflecting the severity of Aβ pathology showed a better correlation with ln(Aβ42/Aβ40) (R 2 = 0.506, β = -0.713, P < 0.001) than with ln(Aβ42) (R 2 = 0.206, β = -0.458, P < 0.001), which was confirmed after adjusting for covariates. Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio showed significantly higher accuracy than Aβ42 in the distinction between cases with or without AD pathology (AUC 0.818 ± 0.028 vs. 0.643 ± 0.039), especially in patients with Aβ42 levels ≤495 pg/mL (AUC 0.888 ± 0.032 vs. 0.518 ± 0.064). Using a cut-off value of 0.810, the analysis of Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio yielded 87.0% sensitivity, 88.2% specificity in the distinction between cases with an intermediate-high level of AD pathology and those with low level or no AD pathology. The present data support the use of CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio as a biomarker of AD pathophysiology and noninvasive screener for Aβ pathology burden, and its introduction in the research diagnostic criteria for AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Baiardi, S., Abu-Rumeileh, S., Rossi, M., Zenesini, C., Bartoletti-Stella, A., Polischi, B., et al. (2019). Antemortem CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio predicts Alzheimer's disease pathology better than Aβ42 in rapidly progressive dementias. Annals of clinical and translational neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.697
Vancouver
Baiardi S, Abu-Rumeileh S, Rossi M, Zenesini C, Bartoletti-Stella A, Polischi B, et al. Antemortem CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio predicts Alzheimer's disease pathology better than Aβ42 in rapidly progressive dementias. Annals of clinical and translational neurology. 2019. doi:10.1002/acn3.697. PMID: 30847359.
BibTeX
@article{baiardi2019-30847359,
author = {Baiardi, Simone and Abu-Rumeileh, Samir and Rossi, Marcello and Zenesini, Corrado and Bartoletti-Stella, Anna and Polischi, Barbara and Capellari, Sabina and Parchi, Piero},
title = {{Antemortem CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio predicts Alzheimer's disease pathology better than Aβ42 in rapidly progressive dementias}},
journal = {Annals of clinical and translational neurology},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1002/acn3.697},
pmid = {30847359},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.697}
}
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.
Key findings
- The score reflecting the severity of Aβ pathology showed a better correlation with ln(Aβ42/Aβ40) (R 2 = 0.506, β = -0.713, P < 0.001) than with ln(Aβ42) (R 2 = 0.206, β = -0.458, P < 0.001), which was confirmed after adjusting for covariates.
- Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio showed significantly higher accuracy than Aβ42 in the distinction between cases with or without AD pathology (AUC 0.818 ± 0.028 vs. 0.643 ± 0.039), especially in patients with Aβ42 levels ≤495 pg/mL (AUC 0.888 ± 0.032 vs. 0.518 ± 0.064).
- Using a cut-off value of 0.810, the analysis of Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio yielded 87.0% sensitivity, 88.2% specificity in the distinction between cases with an intermediate-high level of AD pathology and those with low level or no AD pathology.
- The present data support the use of CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio as a biomarker of AD pathophysiology and noninvasive screener for Aβ pathology burden, and its introduction in the research diagnostic criteria for AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants159
- Effect sizeAUC 0.818; AUC 0.888; 87.0%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 54/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 54 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Annals of clinical and translational neurology) |
| 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 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 159 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 30847359) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 30 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 54 out of 100. |
| Total | 54 / 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.