Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: mapping the road to the clinic
Hampel H, O'Bryant SE, Molinuevo JL, Zetterberg H, Masters CL, Lista S, Kiddle SJ, Batrla R et al.. Nature reviews. Neurology, 2018-11-01
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Biomarker discovery and development for clinical research, diagnostics and therapy monitoring in clinical trials have advanced rapidly in key areas of medicine - most notably, oncology and cardiovascular diseases - allowing rapid early detection and supporting the evolution of biomarker-guided, precision-medicine-based targeted therapies. In Alzheimer disease (AD), breakthroughs in biomarker identification and validation include cerebrospinal fluid and PET markers of amyloid-β and tau proteins, which are highly accurate in detecting the presence of AD-associated pathophysiological and neuropathological changes. However, the high cost, insufficient accessibility and/or invasiveness of these assays limit their use as viable first-line tools for detecting patterns of pathophysiology. Therefore, a multistage, tiered approach is needed, prioritizing development of an initial screen to exclude from these tests the high numbers of people with cognitive deficits who do not demonstrate evidence of underlying AD pathophysiology. This Review summarizes the efforts of an international working group that aimed to survey the current landscape of blood-based AD biomarkers and outlines operational steps for an effective academic-industry co-development pathway from identification and assay development to validation for clinical use.
Key findings
- Biomarker discovery and development for clinical research, diagnostics and therapy monitoring in clinical trials have advanced rapidly in key areas of medicine - most notably, oncology and cardiovascular diseases - allowing rapid early detection and supporting the evolution of biomarker-guided, precision-medicine-based targeted therapies.
- In Alzheimer disease (AD), breakthroughs in biomarker identification and validation include cerebrospinal fluid and PET markers of amyloid-β and tau proteins, which are highly accurate in detecting the presence of AD-associated pathophysiological and neuropathological changes.
- However, the high cost, insufficient accessibility and/or invasiveness of these assays limit their use as viable first-line tools for detecting patterns of pathophysiology.
- Therefore, a multistage, tiered approach is needed, prioritizing development of an initial screen to exclude from these tests the high numbers of people with cognitive deficits who do not demonstrate evidence of underlying AD pathophysiology.
- This Review summarizes the efforts of an international working group that aimed to survey the current landscape of blood-based AD biomarkers and outlines operational steps for an effective academic-industry co-development pathway from identification and assay development to validation for clinical use.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
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 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nature reviews. 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 | 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 30297701) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Hampel, H., O'Bryant, S. E., Molinuevo, J. L., Zetterberg, H., Masters, C. L., Lista, S., et al. (2018). Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: mapping the road to the clinic. Nature reviews. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-018-0079-7
Vancouver
Hampel H, O'Bryant SE, Molinuevo JL, Zetterberg H, Masters CL, Lista S, et al. Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: mapping the road to the clinic. Nature reviews. Neurology. 2018. doi:10.1038/s41582-018-0079-7. PMID: 30297701.
BibTeX
@article{hampel2018-30297701,
author = {Hampel, H. and O'Bryant, S. E. and Molinuevo, J. L. and Zetterberg, H. and Masters, C. L. and Lista, S. and Kiddle, S. J. and Batrla, R. and others},
title = {{Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: mapping the road to the clinic}},
journal = {Nature reviews. Neurology},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1038/s41582-018-0079-7},
pmid = {30297701},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-018-0079-7}
}
Related studies in Tau biomarkers
Also tagged “blood-based”
698 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 698 tagged studies.