Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Brain degeneration in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) results from the accumulation of pathological amyloid- (Aβ) plaques and tau protein tangles, leading to altered plasma levels of biomarkers. However, few studies have investigated the association between plasma biomarkers and cognitive impairment in patients with AD. In this cross-sectional study, we investigated correlations between mini-mental state examination (MMSE) scores and levels of plasma biomarkers in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and AD. Thirteen individuals with normal cognition, 40 patients with aMCI, and 37 patients with AD were enrolled. Immunomagnetic reduction was used to assess the levels of plasma biomarkers, including amyloid A 1-40 , A 1-42 , total tau protein (t-Tau), and phosphorylated tau protein (threonine 181, p-Tau181). Our analysis revealed a significant negative correlation between MMSE and both measures of tau, and a trend toward negative correlation between MMSE and A 1-42 . In a longitudinal study involving three patients with aMCI and two patients with AD, we observed strong negative correlations (r < -0.8) between changes in MMSE scores and plasma levels of t-Tau. Our results suggest that plasma levels of t-Tau and p-Tau181 can be used to assess the severity of cognitive impairment in patients with AD. Furthermore, the results of our preliminary longitudinal study suggest that levels of t-Tau can be used to monitor the progression of cognitive decline in patients with aMCI/AD.

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

APA 7th

Tsai, C. L., Liang, C. S., Lee, J. T., Su, M. W., Lin, C. C., Chu, H. T., et al. (2019). Associations between Plasma Biomarkers and Cognition in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study. Journal of clinical medicine. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111893

Vancouver

Tsai CL, Liang CS, Lee JT, Su MW, Lin CC, Chu HT, et al. Associations between Plasma Biomarkers and Cognition in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study. Journal of clinical medicine. 2019. doi:10.3390/jcm8111893. PMID: 31698867.

BibTeX

@article{tsai2019-31698867,
  author  = {Tsai, C. L. and Liang, C. S. and Lee, J. T. and Su, M. W. and Lin, C. C. and Chu, H. T. and Tsai, C. K. and Lin, G. Y. and others},
  title   = {{Associations between Plasma Biomarkers and Cognition in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Study}},
  journal = {Journal of clinical medicine},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.3390/jcm8111893},
  pmid    = {31698867},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111893}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 59/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 34 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 59 of 100. Total 59 of 100.34 of the 58 points we could judge = 59 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical medicine)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
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 2 / 5 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 40 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 31698867)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 34 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100.
Total 59 / 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.

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

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “cognition”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognition”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →