This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

48/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 48 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Background The clinical distinction between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is sometimes difficult, particularly in mild cases. Although CSF markers such as amyloid β42 (Aβ42) and P-tau can distinguish between AD and normal controls, their ability to distinguish between AD and DLB is not adequate. Objective This study aims to investigate whether CSF markers, in particular levels of Aβ38, can differentiate between mild AD and DLB. Methods 85 individuals were included after standardised diagnostic procedures: 30 diagnosed as probable AD, 23 probable DLB, 20 probable Parkinson's disease dementia and 12 non-demented control subjects. CSF levels of Aβ38, Aβ40 and Aβ42 were determined using commercially available ultra-sensitive multi-array kit assay (MSD) for human Aβ peptides. Total tau (T-tau) and phosphorylated tau (P-tau) were analysed using ELISA (Innotest). In addition, combinations (Aβ42/Aβ38, Aβ42/Aβ40, Aβ42/P-tau and Aβ42/Aβ38/P-tau) were assessed. Results Significant between group differences were found for all CSF measures, and all except Aβ40, Aβ42 and Aβ42/P-tau differed between AD and DLB. The Aβ42/Aβ38 ratio was the measure that best discriminated between AD and DLB (AUC 0.765; p<0.005), with a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 67%. Conclusion This study suggests that the level of Aβ38 can potentially contribute in the diagnostic distinction between AD and DLB when combined with Aβ42. Single measures had low diagnostic accuracy, suggesting that developing a panel of markers is the most promising strategy. Studies with independent and larger samples and a priori cut-offs are needed to test this hypothesis.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Mulugeta, E., Londos, E., Ballard, C., Alves, G., Zetterberg, H., Blennow, K., et al. (2011). CSF amyloid β38 as a novel diagnostic marker for dementia with Lewy bodies. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2009.199398

Vancouver

Mulugeta E, Londos E, Ballard C, Alves G, Zetterberg H, Blennow K, et al. CSF amyloid β38 as a novel diagnostic marker for dementia with Lewy bodies. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2011. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2009.199398. PMID: 21047883.

BibTeX

@article{mulugeta2011-21047883,
  author  = {Mulugeta, E. and Londos, E. and Ballard, C. and Alves, G. and Zetterberg, H. and Blennow, K. and Skogseth, R. and Minthon, L. and others},
  title   = {{CSF amyloid β38 as a novel diagnostic marker for dementia with Lewy bodies}},
  journal = {Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1136/jnnp.2009.199398},
  pmid    = {21047883},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2009.199398}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 85 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “AUC 0.765”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Significant between group differences were found for all CSF measures, and all except Aβ40, Aβ42 and Aβ42/P-tau differed between AD and DLB.
Conclusion This study suggests that the level of Aβ38 can potentially contribute in the diagnostic distinction between AD and DLB when combined with Aβ42.
Single measures had low diagnostic accuracy, suggesting that developing a panel of markers is the most promising strategy.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Participants85
Effect sizeAUC 0.765
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 48/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 and multicenter 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 neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry)
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	1 / 5	2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	85 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)
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 21047883)
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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “diagnostic-markers”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diagnostic-markers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →