Home › Research › Biomarkers
Blood-Based Biomarker Screening with Agnostic Biological Definitions for an Accurate Diagnosis Within the Dimensional Spectrum of Neurodegenerative Diseases
Baldacci F, Lista S, O'Bryant SE, Ceravolo R, Toschi N, Hampel H, Alzheimer Precision Medicine Initiative (APMI).. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2018-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The discovery, development, and validation of novel candidate biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases (NDs) are increasingly gaining momentum. As a result, evolving diagnostic research criteria of NDs are beginning to integrate biofluid and neuroimaging indicators of pathophysiological mechanisms. More than 10% of people aged over 65 suffer from NDs. There is an urgent need for a refined two-stage diagnostic model to first initiate an early, sensitive, and noninvasive process in primary care settings. Individuals that meet detection criteria will then be channeled to more specific, costly (positron-emission tomography), and invasive (cerebrospinal fluid) assessment methods for confirmatory biological characterization and diagnosis.A reliable and sensitive blood test for AD and other NDs is not yet established; however, it would provide the golden screening gate for an efficient primary care management. A limitation to the development of a large-scale blood-screening biomarker-based test is the traditional application of clinically descriptive criteria for the categorization of single late-stage ND constructs. These are genetically and biologically heterogeneous, reflected in multiple pathophysiological mechanisms and subsequent pathologies throughout a dimensional continuum. Evidence suggests that a shared, "open-source" integrated multilevel categorization of NDs that clusters individuals based on descriptive clinical phenotypes and pathophysiological biomarker signatures will provide the next incremental step toward an improved diagnostic process of NDs. This intermediate objective toward unbiased biomarker-guided early detection of individuals at risk for NDs is currently carried out by the international pilot Alzheimer Precision Medicine Initiative Cohort Program (APMI-CP).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Baldacci, F., Lista, S., O'Bryant, S. E., Ceravolo, R., Toschi, N., & Hampel, H. (2018). Blood-Based Biomarker Screening with Agnostic Biological Definitions for an Accurate Diagnosis Within the Dimensional Spectrum of Neurodegenerative Diseases. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7704-8_9
Vancouver
Baldacci F, Lista S, O'Bryant SE, Ceravolo R, Toschi N, Hampel H. Blood-Based Biomarker Screening with Agnostic Biological Definitions for an Accurate Diagnosis Within the Dimensional Spectrum of Neurodegenerative Diseases. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.). 2018. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-7704-8_9. PMID: 29512070.
BibTeX
@article{baldacci2018-29512070,
author = {Baldacci, F. and Lista, S. and O'Bryant, S. E. and Ceravolo, R. and Toschi, N. and Hampel, H.},
title = {{Blood-Based Biomarker Screening with Agnostic Biological Definitions for an Accurate Diagnosis Within the Dimensional Spectrum of Neurodegenerative Diseases}},
journal = {Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1007/978-1-4939-7704-8_9},
pmid = {29512070},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7704-8_9}
}
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
- As a result, evolving diagnostic research criteria of NDs are beginning to integrate biofluid and neuroimaging indicators of pathophysiological mechanisms.
- Evidence suggests that a shared, "open-source" integrated multilevel categorization of NDs that clusters individuals based on descriptive clinical phenotypes and pathophysiological biomarker signatures will provide the next incremental step toward an improved diagnostic process of NDs.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
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 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 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 (Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)) |
| 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 | 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 | 2018 — 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) |
| 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 29512070) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “blood-based-biomarkers”
6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based-biomarkers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.