Home › Research › TREM2 and immune genetics
Cerebrospinal fluid sTREM2 in Alzheimer's disease: comparisons between clinical presentation and AT classification
Knapskog AB, Henjum K, Idland AV, Eldholm RS, Persson K, Saltvedt I, Watne LO, Engedal K et al.. Scientific reports, 2020-09-28
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) is an innate immune receptor expressed by microglia. Its cleaved fragments, soluble TREM2 (sTREM2), can be measured in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Previous studies indicate higher CSF sTREM2 in symptomatic AD; however most of these studies have included biomarker positive AD cases and biomarker negative controls. The aim of the study was to explore potential differences in the CSF level of sTREM2 and factors associated with an increased sTREM2 level in patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia due to AD compared with cognitively unimpaired controls as judged by clinical symptoms and biomarker category (AT). We included 299 memory clinic patients, 62 (20.7%) with AD-MCI and 237 (79.3%) with AD dementia, and 113 cognitively unimpaired controls. CSF measures of the core biomarkers were applied to determine AT status. CSF sTREM2 was analyzed by ELISA. Patients presented with comparable CSF sTREM2 levels as the cognitively unimpaired (9.6 ng/ml [SD 4.7] versus 8.8 ng/ml [SD 3.6], p = 0.27). We found that CSF sTREM2 associated with age-related neuroinflammation and tauopathy irrespectively of amyloid β, APOE ε4 status or gender. The findings were similar in both symptomatic and non-symptomatic individuals.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Knapskog, A. B., Henjum, K., Idland, A. V., Eldholm, R. S., Persson, K., Saltvedt, I., et al. (2020). Cerebrospinal fluid sTREM2 in Alzheimer's disease: comparisons between clinical presentation and AT classification. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72878-8
Vancouver
Knapskog AB, Henjum K, Idland AV, Eldholm RS, Persson K, Saltvedt I, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid sTREM2 in Alzheimer's disease: comparisons between clinical presentation and AT classification. Scientific reports. 2020. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72878-8. PMID: 32985583.
BibTeX
@article{knapskog2020-32985583,
author = {Knapskog, A. B. and Henjum, K. and Idland, A. V. and Eldholm, R. S. and Persson, K. and Saltvedt, I. and Watne, L. O. and Engedal, K. and others},
title = {{Cerebrospinal fluid sTREM2 in Alzheimer's disease: comparisons between clinical presentation and AT classification}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-020-72878-8},
pmid = {32985583},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72878-8}
}
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 aim of the study was to explore potential differences in the CSF level of sTREM2 and factors associated with an increased sTREM2 level in patients diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia due to AD compared with cognitively unimpaired controls as judged by clinical symptoms and biomarker category (AT).
- Patients presented with comparable CSF sTREM2 levels as the cognitively unimpaired (9.6 ng/ml [SD 4.7] versus 8.8 ng/ml [SD 3.6], p = 0.27).
- We found that CSF sTREM2 associated with age-related neuroinflammation and tauopathy irrespectively of amyloid β, APOE ε4 status or gender.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Genetics →
Study details
- Participants299
- Effect size20.7%; 79.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scientific reports) |
| 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 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 299 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 32985583) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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.