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.

41/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia, affecting the central nervous system (CNS) through the accumulation of intraneuronal neurofibrillary tau tangles (NFTs) and β-amyloid plaques. By the time AD is clinically diagnosed, neuronal loss has already occurred in many brain and retinal regions. Therefore, the availability of early and reliable diagnosis markers of the disease would allow its detection and taking preventive measures to avoid neuronal loss. Current diagnostic tools in the brain, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (Aβ and tau) detection are invasive and expensive. Brain-secreted extracellular vesicles (BEVs) isolated from peripheral blood have emerged as novel strategies in the study of AD, with enormous potential as a diagnostic evaluation of therapeutics and treatment tools. In addition; similar mechanisms of neurodegeneration have been demonstrated in the brain and the eyes of AD patients. Since the eyes are more accessible than the brain, several eye tests that detect cellular and vascular changes in the retina have also been proposed as potential screening biomarkers. The aim of this study is to summarize and discuss several potential markers in the brain, eye, blood, and other accessible biofluids like saliva and urine, and correlate them with earlier diagnosis and prognosis to identify individuals with mild symptoms prior to dementia.

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

APA 7th

Ausó, E., Gómez-Vicente, V., & Esquiva, G. (2020). Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease Early Diagnosis. Journal of personalized medicine. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm10030114

Vancouver

Ausó E, Gómez-Vicente V, Esquiva G. Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease Early Diagnosis. Journal of personalized medicine. 2020. doi:10.3390/jpm10030114. PMID: 32899797.

BibTeX

@article{auso2020-32899797,
  author  = {Ausó, E. and Gómez-Vicente, V. and Esquiva, G.},
  title   = {{Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease Early Diagnosis}},
  journal = {Journal of personalized medicine},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.3390/jpm10030114},
  pmid    = {32899797},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm10030114}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
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 low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. 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

In addition; similar mechanisms of neurodegeneration have been demonstrated in the brain and the eyes of AD patients.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 41/100

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. 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of personalized medicine)
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	2020 — within 10 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	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	— / 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32899797)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	24 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100.
Total	41 / 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 Brain scans and imaging from nearby years

Also tagged “early-diagnosis”

6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “early-diagnosis”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →