alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Biomarkers

CSF neurofilament light levels predict hippocampal atrophy in cognitively healthy older adults

Idland AV, Sala-Llonch R, Borza T, Watne LO, Wyller TB, Brækhus A, Zetterberg H, Blennow K et al.. Neurobiology of aging, 2016-09-28

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilament light (NFL) is a marker of axonal degeneration. We tested whether CSF NFL levels predict hippocampal atrophy rate in cognitively healthy older adults independently of the established CSF Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers, β-amyloid 1-42, and phosphorylated tau (P-tau). We included 144 participants in a 2-year longitudinal study with baseline CSF measures and 2 magnetic resonance images. Eighty-eight participants had full data available. A subgroup of 36 participants with very low AD risk was also studied. NFL predicted hippocampal atrophy rate independently of age, β-amyloid 1-42, and P-tau. Including NFL, P-tau, and age in the same model, higher NFL and lower P-tau predicted higher hippocampal atrophy (R 2 = 0.20, NFL: β = -0.34; p = 0.003; P-tau: β = 0.27; p = 0.009). The results were upheld in the participants with very low AD risk. NFL predicted neurodegeneration in older adults with very low AD probability. We suggest that factors previously shown to be important for brain degeneration in mild cognitive impairment may also impact changes in normal aging, demonstrating that NFL is likely to indicate AD-independent, age-expected neurodegeneration.

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

APA 7th

Idland, A. V., Sala-Llonch, R., Borza, T., Watne, L. O., Wyller, T. B., Brækhus, A., et al. (2017). CSF neurofilament light levels predict hippocampal atrophy in cognitively healthy older adults. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.09.012

Vancouver

Idland AV, Sala-Llonch R, Borza T, Watne LO, Wyller TB, Brækhus A, et al. CSF neurofilament light levels predict hippocampal atrophy in cognitively healthy older adults. Neurobiology of aging. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.09.012. PMID: 27794264.

BibTeX

@article{idland2017-27794264,
  author  = {Idland, A. V. and Sala-Llonch, R. and Borza, T. and Watne, L. O. and Wyller, T. B. and Brækhus, A. and Zetterberg, H. and Blennow, K. and others},
  title   = {{CSF neurofilament light levels predict hippocampal atrophy in cognitively healthy older adults}},
  journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.09.012},
  pmid    = {27794264},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.09.012}
}

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

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

Study details

How this study scored 62/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 36 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 62 of 100. Total 62 of 100.36 of the 58 points we could judge = 62 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of aging)
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 2 / 5 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 144 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 27794264)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 36 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100.
Total 62 / 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

224 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.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →