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.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Plain-language summary

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) protects the brain but is also an important obstacle for the effective delivery of therapeutics in Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. Transcranial magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) has been shown to reversibly disrupt the BBB. However, treatment of diffuse regions across the brain along with the effect on Alzheimer's disease relevant pathology need to be better characterized. This study is an open-labelled single-arm trial (NCT04118764) to investigate the feasibility of modulating BBB permeability in the default mode network and the impact on cognition, amyloid and tau pathology as well as BBB integrity. Nine participants [mean age 70.2 ± 7.2 years, mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) 21.9] underwent three biweekly procedures with follow-up visits up to 6 months. The BBB permeability of the bilateral hippocampi, anterior cingulate cortex and precuneus was transiently increased without grade 3 or higher adverse events. Participants did not experience worsening trajectory of cognitive decline (ADAS-cog11, MMSE). Whole brain vertex-based analysis of the 18F-florbetaben PET imaging demonstrated clusters of modest SUVR reduction in the right parahippocampal and inferior temporal lobe. However, CSF and blood biomarkers did not demonstrate any amelioration of Alzheimer's disease pathology (P-tau181, amyloid-β42/40 ratio), nor did it show persistent BBB dysfunction (plasma PDGFRbeta and CSF-to-plasma albumin ratio). This study provides neuroimaging and fluid biomarker data to characterize the safety profile of MRgFUS BBB modulation in neurodegeneration as a potential strategy for enhanced therapeutic delivery.

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

APA 7th

Meng, Y., Goubran, M., Rabin, J. S., McSweeney, M., Ottoy, J., Pople, C. B., et al. (2023). Blood-brain barrier opening of the default mode network in Alzheimer's disease with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. Brain : a journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac459

Vancouver

Meng Y, Goubran M, Rabin JS, McSweeney M, Ottoy J, Pople CB, et al. Blood-brain barrier opening of the default mode network in Alzheimer's disease with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2023. doi:10.1093/brain/awac459. PMID: 36694943.

BibTeX

@article{meng2023-36694943,
  author  = {Meng, Y. and Goubran, M. and Rabin, J. S. and McSweeney, M. and Ottoy, J. and Pople, C. B. and Huang, Y. and Storace, A. and others},
  title   = {{Blood-brain barrier opening of the default mode network in Alzheimer's disease with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound}},
  journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.1093/brain/awac459},
  pmid    = {36694943},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac459}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
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

Whole brain vertex-based analysis of the 18F-florbetaben PET imaging demonstrated clusters of modest SUVR reduction in the right parahippocampal and inferior temporal lobe.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a leading specialty 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain : a journal of 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	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)
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 36694943)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 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 Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “amyloid-angiopathy”

228 studies in the library carry the topic tag “amyloid-angiopathy”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 228 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →