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: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Recent advances in blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) show great promise for clinical applications, offering a less invasive alternative to current cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures. However, the relationships between these biomarkers and specific cognitive functions, as well as their utility in predicting longitudinal cognitive decline, are not yet fully understood. This descriptive review surveys the literature from 2018 to 2023, focusing on the associations of amyloid-β (Aβ), Total Tau (t-Tau), Phosphorylated Tau (p-Tau), Neurofilament Light (NfL), and Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP) with cognitive measures. The reviewed studies are heterogeneous, varying in design and population (cognitively unimpaired, cognitively impaired, or mixed populations), and show results that are sometimes conflicting. Generally, cognition positively correlates with Aβ levels, especially when evaluated through the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio. In contrast, t-Tau, p-Tau, Nfl, and GFAP levels typically show a negative correlation with cognitive performance. While p-Tau measures generally exhibit stronger associations with cognitive functions compared to other biomarkers, no single blood marker has emerged as being predominantly linked to a specific cognitive domain. These findings contribute to our understanding of the complex relationship between blood biomarkers and cognitive performance and underscore their potential utility in clinical assessments of cognition.

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 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 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 left out, no data. 33 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 59 of 100. Total 59 of 100.33 of the 56 points we could judge = 59 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Biomolecules)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over 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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 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 38254693)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 33 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 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.

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

Garcia-Escobar, G., Manero, R. M., Fernández-Lebrero, A., Ois, A., Navalpotro-Gómez, I., Puente-Periz, V., et al. (2024). Blood Biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease and Cognition: A Literature Review. Biomolecules. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom14010093

Vancouver

Garcia-Escobar G, Manero RM, Fernández-Lebrero A, Ois A, Navalpotro-Gómez I, Puente-Periz V, et al. Blood Biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease and Cognition: A Literature Review. Biomolecules. 2024. doi:10.3390/biom14010093. PMID: 38254693.

BibTeX

@article{garciaescobar2024-38254693,
  author  = {Garcia-Escobar, Greta and Manero, Rosa Maria and Fernández-Lebrero, Aida and Ois, Angel and Navalpotro-Gómez, Irene and Puente-Periz, Victor and Contador-Muñana, José and Estragués-Gazquez, Isabel and others},
  title   = {{Blood Biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease and Cognition: A Literature Review}},
  journal = {Biomolecules},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.3390/biom14010093},
  pmid    = {38254693},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/biom14010093}
}

Related studies in 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.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →