Home › Research › Biomarkers
Concordance Between Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers with Alzheimer's Disease Pathology Between Three Independent Assay Platforms
Doecke JD, Rembach A, Villemagne VL, Varghese S, Rainey-Smith S, Sarros S, Evered LA, Fowler CJ et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2018-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background To enhance the accuracy of clinical diagnosis for Alzheimer's disease (AD), pre-mortem biomarkers have become increasingly important for diagnosis and for participant recruitment in disease-specific treatment trials. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers provide a low-cost alternative to positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for in vivo quantification of different AD pathological hallmarks in the brains of affected subjects; however, consensus around the best platform, most informative biomarker and correlations across different methodologies are controversial. Objective Assessing levels of Aβ-amyloid and tau species determined using three different versions of immunoassays, the current study explored the ability of CSF biomarkers to predict PET Aβ-amyloid (32 Aβ-amyloid-and 45 Aβ-amyloid+), as well as concordance between CSF biomarker levels and PET Aβ-amyloid imaging. Methods Prediction and concordance analyses were performed using a sub-cohort of 77 individuals (48 healthy controls, 15 with mild cognitive impairment, and 14 with AD) from the Australian Imaging Biomarker and Lifestyle study of aging. Results Across all three platforms, the T-tau/Aβ42 ratio biomarker had modestly higher correlation with SUVR/BeCKeT (ρ= 0.69-0.8) as compared with Aβ42 alone (ρ= 0.66-0.75). Differences in CSF biomarker levels between the PET Aβ-amyloid-and Aβ-amyloid+ groups were strongest for the Aβ42/Aβ40 and T-tau/Aβ42 ratios (p < 0.0001); however, comparison of predictive models for PET Aβ-amyloid showed no difference between Aβ42 alone and the T-tau/Aβ42 ratio. Conclusion This study confirms strong concordance between CSF biomarkers and PET Aβ-amyloid status is independent of immunoassay platform, supporting their utility as biomarkers in clinical practice for the diagnosis of AD and for participant enrichment in clinical trials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Doecke, J. D., Rembach, A., Villemagne, V. L., Varghese, S., Rainey-Smith, S., Sarros, S., et al. (2018). Concordance Between Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers with Alzheimer's Disease Pathology Between Three Independent Assay Platforms. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170128
Vancouver
Doecke JD, Rembach A, Villemagne VL, Varghese S, Rainey-Smith S, Sarros S, et al. Concordance Between Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers with Alzheimer's Disease Pathology Between Three Independent Assay Platforms. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2018. doi:10.3233/jad-170128. PMID: 29171991.
BibTeX
@article{doecke2018-29171991,
author = {Doecke, J. D. and Rembach, A. and Villemagne, V. L. and Varghese, S. and Rainey-Smith, S. and Sarros, S. and Evered, L. A. and Fowler, C. J. and others},
title = {{Concordance Between Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers with Alzheimer's Disease Pathology Between Three Independent Assay Platforms}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.3233/jad-170128},
pmid = {29171991},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170128}
}
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
- Results Across all three platforms, the T-tau/Aβ42 ratio biomarker had modestly higher correlation with SUVR/BeCKeT (ρ= 0.69-0.8) as compared with Aβ42 alone (ρ= 0.66-0.75).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants77
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 77 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 29171991) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “pathology”
9 studies in the library carry the topic tag “pathology”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 9 tagged studies.