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.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Plain-language summary

In the 115 years since the discovery of Alzheimer's disease (AD), our knowledge, diagnosis, and therapeutics have significantly improved. Biomarkers are the primary tools for clinical research, diagnostics, and therapeutic monitoring in clinical trials. They provide much insightful information, and while they are not clinically used routinely, they help us to understand the mechanisms of this disease. This review charts the journey of AD biomarker discovery and development from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-beta 1-42 (Aβ42), total tau (T-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau) biomarkers and imaging technologies to the next generation of biomarkers. We also discuss advanced high-sensitivity assay platforms for CSF Aβ42, T-tau, p-tau, and blood analysis. The recently proposed Aβ deposition/tau biomarker/neurodegeneration or neuronal injury (ATN) scheme might facilitate the definition of the biological status underpinning AD and offer a common language among researchers across biochemical biomarkers and imaging. Moreover, we highlight blood-based biomarkers for AD that offer a scalable alternative to CSF biomarkers through cost-saving and reduced invasiveness, and may provide an understanding of disease initiation and development. We discuss different groups of blood-based biomarker candidates, their advantages and limitations, and paths forward, from identification and analysis to clinical validation. The development of valid blood-based biomarkers may facilitate the implementation of future AD therapeutics and diagnostics.

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

APA 7th

Mankhong, S., Kim, S., Lee, S., Kwak, H. B., Park, D. H., Joa, K. L., et al. (2022). Development of Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers: From CSF- to Blood-Based Biomarkers. Biomedicines. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10040850

Vancouver

Mankhong S, Kim S, Lee S, Kwak HB, Park DH, Joa KL, et al. Development of Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers: From CSF- to Blood-Based Biomarkers. Biomedicines. 2022. doi:10.3390/biomedicines10040850. PMID: 35453600.

BibTeX

@article{mankhong2022-35453600,
  author  = {Mankhong, S. and Kim, S. and Lee, S. and Kwak, H. B. and Park, D. H. and Joa, K. L. and Kang, J. H.},
  title   = {{Development of Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers: From CSF- to Blood-Based Biomarkers}},
  journal = {Biomedicines},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.3390/biomedicines10040850},
  pmid    = {35453600},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10040850}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

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

In the 115 years since the discovery of Alzheimer's disease (AD), our knowledge, diagnosis, and therapeutics have significantly improved.

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

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Biomedicines)
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	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)
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 35453600)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 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 “p-tau217”

692 studies in the library carry the topic tag “p-tau217”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 692 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →