Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Characterization of Alzheimer's tau biomarker discordance using plasma, CSF, and PET
Yu Guo, Yu-Yuan Huang, Xue-Ning Shen, Shi-Dong Chen, Hao Hu, Zuo-Teng Wang, Lan Tan, Jin-Tai Yu et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2021-05-04
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Across different tau biomarker groups, the proportion of participants with a discordant profile varied (plasma+/CSF- 15.6%, plasma-/CSF+ 15.3%, plasma+/PET- 22.4%, and plasma-/PET+ 6.1%). Within the plasma/CSF categories, we found an increase from concordant-negative to discordant to concordant-positive in the frequency of Aβ pathology or cognitive impairment, rates of cognitive decline, and risk of cognitive conversion. However, the two discordant categories (plasma+/CSF- and plasma-/CSF+) showed comparable performances, resulting in similarly reduced cognitive capacities. Regarding plasma/PET categories, as expected, PET-positive individuals had increased Aβ burden, elevated flortaucipir retention in Braak ROIs, and accelerated cognitive deterioration than concordant-negative persons. Noteworthy, discordant participants with normal PET exhibited reduced flortaucipir uptake in Braak stage ROIs and slower rates of cognitive decline, relative to those PET-positive. Therefore, individuals with PET abnormality appeared to have advanced tau pathological changes and poorer cognitive function, regardless of the plasma status. Furthermore, these results were found only in individuals with Aβ pathology. Our results indicate that plasma and CSF p-tau181 abnormalities associated with amyloidosis occur simultaneously in the progression of AD pathogenesis and related cognitive decline, before tau-PET turns positive.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Guo, Y., Huang, Y.-Y., Shen, X.-N., Chen, S.-D., Hu, H., Wang, Z.-T., et al. (2021). Characterization of Alzheimer's tau biomarker discordance using plasma, CSF, and PET. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00834-3
Vancouver
Guo Y, Huang Y.-Y, Shen X.-N, Chen S.-D, Hu H, Wang Z.-T, et al. Characterization of Alzheimer's tau biomarker discordance using plasma, CSF, and PET. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2021. doi:10.1186/s13195-021-00834-3. PMID: 33947453.
BibTeX
@article{guo2021-33947453,
author = {Guo, Yu and Huang, Yu-Yuan and Shen, Xue-Ning and Chen, Shi-Dong and Hu, Hao and Wang, Zuo-Teng and Tan, Lan and Yu, Jin-Tai and others},
title = {{Characterization of Alzheimer's tau biomarker discordance using plasma, CSF, and PET}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-021-00834-3},
pmid = {33947453},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00834-3}
}
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
- Across different tau biomarker groups, the proportion of participants with a discordant profile varied (plasma+/CSF- 15.6%, plasma-/CSF+ 15.3%, plasma+/PET- 22.4%, and plasma-/PET+ 6.1%).
- Within the plasma/CSF categories, we found an increase from concordant-negative to discordant to concordant-positive in the frequency of Aβ pathology or cognitive impairment, rates of cognitive decline, and risk of cognitive conversion.
- However, the two discordant categories (plasma+/CSF- and plasma-/CSF+) showed comparable performances, resulting in similarly reduced cognitive capacities.
- Regarding plasma/PET categories, as expected, PET-positive individuals had increased Aβ burden, elevated flortaucipir retention in Braak ROIs, and accelerated cognitive deterioration than concordant-negative persons.
- Noteworthy, discordant participants with normal PET exhibited reduced flortaucipir uptake in Braak stage ROIs and slower rates of cognitive decline, relative to those PET-positive.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Effect size15.6%; 15.3%; 22.4%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 61/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 61 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 33947453) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 34 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 61 out of 100. |
| Total | 61 / 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 Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “18f”
318 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 318 tagged studies.