Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Developing robust biomarkers for vascular cognitive disorders: adding 'V' to the AT(N) research framework
Perminder S Sachdev. Current opinion in psychiatry, 2020-03
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The AT(N) research framework was introduced in 2018 to define Alzheimer's disease as a biological entity. It is recognized that Alzheimer's disease lesions rarely occur in isolation in older brains, with cerebrovascular disease (CVD) being a common comorbidity. To fully characterize the disorder of dementia, the AT(N) framework needs to be extended with biomarkers for other disorders. The present review examines some of the requirements for adding a 'V' to the AT(N), and examines the currently available biomarkers as definitive markers of CVD. RECENT FINDINGS: Neuroimaging biomarkers of CVD have received the greatest attention, with rapid advances in MRI techniques showing the greatest promise. Challenges remain in standardization of techniques, validation of some of the results and assessing total CVD burden from diverse lesion types. Retinal imaging shows promise as a window to cerebral vasculature. Biochemical markers are advancing rapidly, but their specificity for CVD is not established. SUMMARY: Biomarkers of CVD have seen rapid advances but further validation and determination of their specificity are needed before they can be reliably used to delineate a V in the AT(N) framework as definitive indicators of significant CVD.
Key findings
- Challenges remain in standardization of techniques, validation of some of the results and assessing total CVD burden from diverse lesion types.
- SUMMARY: Biomarkers of CVD have seen rapid advances but further validation and determination of their specificity are needed before they can be reliably used to delineate a V in the AT(N) framework as definitive indicators of significant CVD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current opinion in 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 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 31895155) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Sachdev, P. S. (2020). Developing robust biomarkers for vascular cognitive disorders: adding 'V' to the AT(N) research framework. Current opinion in psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1097/yco.0000000000000577
Vancouver
Sachdev PS. Developing robust biomarkers for vascular cognitive disorders: adding 'V' to the AT(N) research framework. Current opinion in psychiatry. 2020. doi:10.1097/yco.0000000000000577. PMID: 31895155.
BibTeX
@article{sachdev2020-31895155,
author = {Sachdev, Perminder S},
title = {{Developing robust biomarkers for vascular cognitive disorders: adding 'V' to the AT(N) research framework}},
journal = {Current opinion in psychiatry},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1097/yco.0000000000000577},
pmid = {31895155},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/yco.0000000000000577}
}