Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: Current state and future use in a transformed global healthcare landscape
Hampel H, Hu Y, Cummings J, Mattke S, Iwatsubo T, Nakamura A, Vellas B, O'Bryant S et al.. Neuron, 2023-06-08
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Timely detection of the pathophysiological changes and cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasingly pressing because of the advent of biomarker-guided targeted therapies that may be most effective when provided early in the disease. Currently, diagnosis and management of early AD are largely guided by clinical symptoms. FDA-approved neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers can aid detection and diagnosis, but the clinical implementation of these testing modalities is limited because of availability, cost, and perceived invasiveness. Blood-based biomarkers (BBBMs) may enable earlier and faster diagnoses as well as aid in risk assessment, early detection, prognosis, and management. Herein, we review data on BBBMs that are closest to clinical implementation, particularly those based on measures of amyloid-β peptides and phosphorylated tau species. We discuss key parameters and considerations for the development and potential deployment of these BBBMs under different contexts of use and highlight challenges at the methodological, clinical, and regulatory levels.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hampel, H., Hu, Y., Cummings, J., Mattke, S., Iwatsubo, T., Nakamura, A., et al. (2023). Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: Current state and future use in a transformed global healthcare landscape. Neuron. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2023.05.017
Vancouver
Hampel H, Hu Y, Cummings J, Mattke S, Iwatsubo T, Nakamura A, et al. Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: Current state and future use in a transformed global healthcare landscape. Neuron. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2023.05.017. PMID: 37295421.
BibTeX
@article{hampel2023-37295421,
author = {Hampel, H. and Hu, Y. and Cummings, J. and Mattke, S. and Iwatsubo, T. and Nakamura, A. and Vellas, B. and O'Bryant, S. and others},
title = {{Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: Current state and future use in a transformed global healthcare landscape}},
journal = {Neuron},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuron.2023.05.017},
pmid = {37295421},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2023.05.017}
}
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
- Currently, diagnosis and management of early AD are largely guided by clinical symptoms.
- FDA-approved neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers can aid detection and diagnosis, but the clinical implementation of these testing modalities is limited because of availability, cost, and perceived invasiveness.
- Blood-based biomarkers (BBBMs) may enable earlier and faster diagnoses as well as aid in risk assessment, early detection, prognosis, and management.
- Herein, we review data on BBBMs that are closest to clinical implementation, particularly those based on measures of amyloid-β peptides and phosphorylated tau species.
- We discuss key parameters and considerations for the development and potential deployment of these BBBMs under different contexts of use and highlight challenges at the methodological, clinical, and regulatory levels.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuron) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 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 37295421) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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 Tau biomarkers
Also tagged “landscape”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “landscape”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.