Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker examination as a tool to discriminate behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorders
Everard G B Vijverberg, Annemiek Dols, Welmoed A Krudop, Marta Del Campo Milan, Cora J Kerssens, Flora Gossink, Niels D Prins, Max L Stek et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2017-03-02
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
The best discriminators between probable/definite bvFTD and PSY were the levels of CSF NfL (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93, P < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.00), p-tau/tau ratio (AUC 0.87, P < .001, 95% CI 0.77-0.97), and YKL40 (AUC 0.82, P = .001, 95% CI 0.68-0.97). The combination of these three biomarkers had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 66%-100%) at a specificity of 83% (95% CI 65%-95%) with an AUC of 0.94 (P < .001, 95% CI 0.87-1.00) for bvFTD. CSF tau/Aβ1-42 ratio was less accurate in differentiating between bvFTD and PSY. We found a good diagnostic accuracy for higher levels of CSF NfL and YKL40 and reduced p-tau/tau ratio in distinguishing bvFTD from PSY. We advocate the use of these CSF biomarkers as potential additional tools to neuroimaging in the diagnosis of bvFTD versus PSY.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Vijverberg, E. G. B., Dols, A., Krudop, W. A., Milan, M. D. C., Kerssens, C. J., Gossink, F., et al. (2017). Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker examination as a tool to discriminate behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorders. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2017.01.009
Vancouver
Vijverberg EGB, Dols A, Krudop WA, Milan MDC, Kerssens CJ, Gossink F, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker examination as a tool to discriminate behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorders. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2017. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2017.01.009. PMID: 28337476.
BibTeX
@article{vijverberg2017-28337476,
author = {Vijverberg, Everard G B and Dols, Annemiek and Krudop, Welmoed A and Milan, Marta Del Campo and Kerssens, Cora J and Gossink, Flora and Prins, Niels D and Stek, Max L and others},
title = {{Cerebrospinal fluid biomarker examination as a tool to discriminate behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorders}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.dadm.2017.01.009},
pmid = {28337476},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2017.01.009}
}
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
- The best discriminators between probable/definite bvFTD and PSY were the levels of CSF NfL (area under the curve [AUC] 0.93, P < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.00), p-tau/tau ratio (AUC 0.87, P < .001, 95% CI 0.77-0.97), and YKL40 (AUC 0.82, P = .001, 95% CI 0.68-0.97).
- The combination of these three biomarkers had a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 66%-100%) at a specificity of 83% (95% CI 65%-95%) with an AUC of 0.94 (P < .001, 95% CI 0.87-1.00) for bvFTD.
- CSF tau/Aβ1-42 ratio was less accurate in differentiating between bvFTD and PSY.
- We found a good diagnostic accuracy for higher levels of CSF NfL and YKL40 and reduced p-tau/tau ratio in distinguishing bvFTD from PSY.
- We advocate the use of these CSF biomarkers as potential additional tools to neuroimaging in the diagnosis of bvFTD versus PSY.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants22
- Effect sizeAUC 0.87; AUC 0.82
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design 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 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| 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 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 22 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 28337476) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 31 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 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 Tau biomarkers
Also in Tau biomarkers
68 studies in the library are filed under Tau biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Tau biomarkers hub.