Home › Research › Biomarkers
Differential diagnostic performance of a panel of plasma biomarkers for different types of dementia
Thijssen EH, Verberk IMW, Kindermans J, Abramian A, Vanbrabant J, Ball AJ, Pijnenburg Y, Lemstra AW et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022-05-15
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Introduction We explored what combination of blood-based biomarkers (amyloid beta [Aβ] 1-42/1-40 , phosphorylated tau [p-tau]181, neurofilament light [NfL], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP]) differentiates Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Methods We measured the biomarkers with Simoa in two separate cohorts (n = 160 and n = 152). In one cohort, Aβ 1-42/1-40 was also measured with mass spectrometry (MS). We assessed the differential diagnostic value of the markers, by logistic regression with Wald's backward selection. Results MS and Simoa Aβ 1-42/1-40 similarly differentiated AD from controls. The Simoa panel that optimally differentiated AD from FTD consisted of NfL and p-tau181 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.94; cohort 1) or NfL, GFAP, and p-tau181 (AUC = 0.90; cohort 2). For AD from DLB, the panel consisted of NfL, p-tau181, and GFAP (AUC = 0.88; cohort 1), and only p-tau181 (AUC = 0.81; cohort 2). Discussion A combination of plasma p-tau181, NfL, and GFAP, but not Aβ 1-42/1-40 , might be useful to discriminate AD, FTD, and DLB.
Key findings
- Results MS and Simoa Aβ 1-42/1-40 similarly differentiated AD from controls.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants160
- Effect sizeAUC = 0.90; AUC = 0.88; AUC = 0.81
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design 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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 160 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) |
| 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 35603139) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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. 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.
APA 7th
Thijssen, E. H., Verberk, I. M. W., Kindermans, J., Abramian, A., Vanbrabant, J., Ball, A. J., et al. (2022). Differential diagnostic performance of a panel of plasma biomarkers for different types of dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12285
Vancouver
Thijssen EH, Verberk IMW, Kindermans J, Abramian A, Vanbrabant J, Ball AJ, et al. Differential diagnostic performance of a panel of plasma biomarkers for different types of dementia. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2022. doi:10.1002/dad2.12285. PMID: 35603139.
BibTeX
@article{thijssen2022-35603139,
author = {Thijssen, E. H. and Verberk, I. M. W. and Kindermans, J. and Abramian, A. and Vanbrabant, J. and Ball, A. J. and Pijnenburg, Y. and Lemstra, A. W. and others},
title = {{Differential diagnostic performance of a panel of plasma biomarkers for different types of dementia}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.12285},
pmid = {35603139},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12285}
}