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.

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 48 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent dementia, but it shows similar initial symptoms to other neurocognitive diseases (Lewy body disease (LBD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD)). Thus, the identification of reliable AD plasma biomarkers is required. The aim of this work is to evaluate the use of a few plasma biomarkers to develop an early and specific AD screening method. Plasma p-Tau181, neurofilament light (NfL), and glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP) were determined by Single Molecule Assay (SIMOA® Quanterix, Billerica, MA, USA) in patients with mild cognitive impairment due to AD (MCI-AD, n = 50), AD dementia (n = 10), FTD (n = 20), LBD (n = 5), and subjective cognitive impairment (SCI (n = 21)). Plasma p-Tau181 and GFAP showed the highest levels in AD dementia, and significant correlations with clinical AD characteristics; meanwhile, NfL showed the highest levels in FTD, but no significant correlations with AD. The partial least squares (PLS) diagnosis model developed between the AD and SCI groups showed good accuracy with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under curve (AUC) of 0.935 (CI 95% 0.87-0.98), sensitivity of 86%, and specificity of 88%. In a first screen, NfL plasma levels could identify FTD patients among subjects with cognitive impairment. Then, the developed PLS model including p-Tau181 and GFAP levels could identify AD patients, constituting a simple, early, and specific diagnosis approach.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 48/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 1 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 left out, no data. 27 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 48 of 100. Total 48 of 100.27 of the 56 points we could judge = 48 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of molecular sciences)
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 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 50 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 37762457)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 27 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100.
Total 48 / 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 names 8 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.

APA 7th

Álvarez-Sánchez, L., Peña-Bautista, C., Ferré-González, L., Cubas, L., Balaguer, A., Casanova-Estruch, B., et al. (2023). Early Alzheimer's Disease Screening Approach Using Plasma Biomarkers. International journal of molecular sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241814151

Vancouver

Álvarez-Sánchez L, Peña-Bautista C, Ferré-González L, Cubas L, Balaguer A, Casanova-Estruch B, et al. Early Alzheimer's Disease Screening Approach Using Plasma Biomarkers. International journal of molecular sciences. 2023. doi:10.3390/ijms241814151. PMID: 37762457.

BibTeX

@article{alvarezsanchez2023-37762457,
  author  = {Álvarez-Sánchez, Lourdes and Peña-Bautista, Carmen and Ferré-González, Laura and Cubas, Laura and Balaguer, Angel and Casanova-Estruch, Bonaventura and Baquero, Miguel and Cháfer-Pericás, Consuelo},
  title   = {{Early Alzheimer's Disease Screening Approach Using Plasma Biomarkers}},
  journal = {International journal of molecular sciences},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.3390/ijms241814151},
  pmid    = {37762457},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241814151}
}

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “blood-based”

698 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 698 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →