Home › Research › Biomarkers
Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of plasma neurofilament light across FTD spectrum disorders
Tania F Gendron, Michael G Heckman, Launia J White, Austin M Veire, Otto Pedraza, Alexander R Burch, Andrea C Bozoki, Bradford C Dickerson et al.. Cell reports. Medicine, 2022-04-19
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) therapy development is hamstrung by a lack of susceptibility, diagnostic, and prognostic biomarkers. Blood neurofilament light (NfL) shows promise as a biomarker, but studies have largely focused only on core FTD syndromes, often grouping patients with different diagnoses. To expedite the clinical translation of NfL, we avail ARTFL LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD) study resources and conduct a comprehensive investigation of plasma NfL across FTD syndromes and in presymptomatic FTD mutation carriers. We find plasma NfL is elevated in all studied syndromes, including mild cases; increases in presymptomatic mutation carriers prior to phenoconversion; and associates with indicators of disease severity. By facilitating the identification of individuals at risk of phenoconversion, and the early diagnosis of FTD, plasma NfL can aid in participant selection for prevention or early treatment trials. Moreover, its prognostic utility would improve patient care, clinical trial efficiency, and treatment outcome estimations.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gendron, T. F., Heckman, M. G., White, L. J., Veire, A. M., Pedraza, O., Burch, A. R., et al. (2022). Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of plasma neurofilament light across FTD spectrum disorders. Cell reports. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100607
Vancouver
Gendron TF, Heckman MG, White LJ, Veire AM, Pedraza O, Burch AR, et al. Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of plasma neurofilament light across FTD spectrum disorders. Cell reports. Medicine. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100607. PMID: 35492244.
BibTeX
@article{gendron2022-35492244,
author = {Gendron, Tania F and Heckman, Michael G and White, Launia J and Veire, Austin M and Pedraza, Otto and Burch, Alexander R and Bozoki, Andrea C and Dickerson, Bradford C and others},
title = {{Comprehensive cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of plasma neurofilament light across FTD spectrum disorders}},
journal = {Cell reports. Medicine},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100607},
pmid = {35492244},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100607}
}
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
- Blood neurofilament light (NfL) shows promise as a biomarker, but studies have largely focused only on core FTD syndromes, often grouping patients with different diagnoses.
- To expedite the clinical translation of NfL, we avail ARTFL LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD) study resources and conduct a comprehensive investigation of plasma NfL across FTD syndromes and in presymptomatic FTD mutation carriers.
- We find plasma NfL is elevated in all studied syndromes, including mild cases; increases in presymptomatic mutation carriers prior to phenoconversion; and associates with indicators of disease severity.
- By facilitating the identification of individuals at risk of phenoconversion, and the early diagnosis of FTD, plasma NfL can aid in participant selection for prevention or early treatment trials.
- Moreover, its prognostic utility would improve patient care, clinical trial efficiency, and treatment outcome estimations.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
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 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Cell reports. Medicine) |
| 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 | 2022 — 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) |
| 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 35492244) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 32 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 Biomarkers
Also in Biomarkers
204 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.