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.

52/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Background Plasma amyloid-β (Aβ), phosphorylated tau-181 (p-tau181), neurofilament light (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) potentially aid in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias. We aim to conduct a comprehensive comparison between different biomarkers and their combination, which is lacking, in a multicenter Chinese dementia cohort consisting of Alzheimer's disease (AD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). Methods We enrolled 92 demented patients [64 AD, 16 FTD, and 12 PSP with dementia] and 20 healthy controls (HC). Their plasma Αβ, p-tau181, NfL, and GFAP were detected by highly sensitive-single molecule immunoassays. Αβ pathology in patients was measured by cerebrospinal fluid or/and amyloid positron emission tomography. Results All plasma biomarkers tested were significantly altered in dementia patients compared with HC, especially Aβ42/Aβ40 and NfL showed significant performance in distinguishing AD from HC. A combination of plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, NfL, and GFAP could discriminate FTD or PSP well from HC and was able to distinguish AD and non-AD (FTD/PSP). Conclusions Our results confirmed the diagnostic performance of individual plasma biomarkers Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, NfL, and GFAP in Chinese dementia patients and noted that a combination of these biomarkers may be more accurate in identifying FTD/PSP patients and distinguishing AD from non-AD dementia.

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

APA 7th

Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Tao, Q., Lu, P., Meng, F., Zhuang, L., et al. (2024). Diagnostic value of isolated plasma biomarkers and its combination in neurodegenerative dementias: A multicenter cohort study. Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2024.118784

Vancouver

Chen Y, Wang Y, Tao Q, Lu P, Meng F, Zhuang L, et al. Diagnostic value of isolated plasma biomarkers and its combination in neurodegenerative dementias: A multicenter cohort study. Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2024.118784. PMID: 38588788.

BibTeX

@article{chen2024-38588788,
  author  = {Chen, Y. and Wang, Y. and Tao, Q. and Lu, P. and Meng, F. and Zhuang, L. and Qiao, S. and Zhang, Y. and others},
  title   = {{Diagnostic value of isolated plasma biomarkers and its combination in neurodegenerative dementias: A multicenter cohort study}},
  journal = {Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.cca.2024.118784},
  pmid    = {38588788},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2024.118784}
}

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 92 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
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 moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. 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 All plasma biomarkers tested were significantly altered in dementia patients compared with HC, especially Aβ42/Aβ40 and NfL showed significant performance in distinguishing AD from HC.
Conclusions Our results confirmed the diagnostic performance of individual plasma biomarkers Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, NfL, and GFAP in Chinese dementia patients and noted that a combination of these biomarkers may be more accurate in identifying FTD/PSP patients and distinguishing AD from non-AD dementia.

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

Study details

Participants92
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 52/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry)
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	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	92 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)
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	2 / 3	PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38588788)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	32 / 61	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total	52 / 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-value”

7 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diagnostic-value”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 7 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →