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 40 out of 100. Tau biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Background Neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's are associated with the aggregation of endogenous peptides and proteins that contribute to neuronal dysfunction and loss. The glymphatic system, a brain-wide perivascular pathway along which cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and interstitial fluid (ISF) rapidly exchange, has recently been identified as a key contributor to the clearance of interstitial solutes from the brain, including amyloid β. These findings suggest that measuring changes in glymphatic pathway function may be an important prognostic for evaluating neurodegenerative disease susceptibility or progression. However, no clinically acceptable approach to evaluate glymphatic pathway function in humans has yet been developed. Methods Time-sequenced ex vivo fluorescence imaging of coronal rat and mouse brain slices was performed at 30-180 min following intrathecal infusion of CSF tracer (Texas Red- dextran-3, MW 3 kD; FITC- dextran-500, MW 500 kD) into the cisterna magna or lumbar spine. Tracer influx into different brain regions (cortex, white matter, subcortical structures, and hippocampus) in rat was quantified to map the movement of CSF tracer following infusion along both routes, and to determine whether glymphatic pathway function could be evaluated after lumbar intrathecal infusion. Results Following lumbar intrathecal infusions, small molecular weight TR-d3 entered the brain along perivascular pathways and exchanged broadly with the brain ISF, consistent with the initial characterization of the glymphatic pathway in mice. Large molecular weight FITC-d500 remained confined to the perivascular spaces. Lumbar intrathecal infusions exhibited a reduced and delayed peak parenchymal fluorescence intensity compared to intracisternal infusions. Conclusion Lumbar intrathecal contrast delivery is a clinically useful approach that could be used in conjunction with dynamic contrast enhanced MRI nuclear imaging to assess glymphatic pathway function in humans.

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

APA 7th

Yang, L., Kress, B. T., Weber, H. J., Thiyagarajan, M., Wang, B., Deane, R., et al. (2013). Evaluating glymphatic pathway function utilizing clinically relevant intrathecal infusion of CSF tracer. Journal of translational medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-11-107

Vancouver

Yang L, Kress BT, Weber HJ, Thiyagarajan M, Wang B, Deane R, et al. Evaluating glymphatic pathway function utilizing clinically relevant intrathecal infusion of CSF tracer. Journal of translational medicine. 2013. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-11-107. PMID: 23635358.

BibTeX

@article{yang2013-23635358,
  author  = {Yang, L. and Kress, B. T. and Weber, H. J. and Thiyagarajan, M. and Wang, B. and Deane, R. and Benveniste, H. and Iliff, J. J. and others},
  title   = {{Evaluating glymphatic pathway function utilizing clinically relevant intrathecal infusion of CSF tracer}},
  journal = {Journal of translational medicine},
  year    = {2013},
  doi     = {10.1186/1479-5876-11-107},
  pmid    = {23635358},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-11-107}
}

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.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 40/100
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 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 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 2 of 2. 23 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Total 40 of 100.23 of the 58 points we could judge = 40 of 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of translational medicine)
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 1 / 5 2013 — within 20 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 23635358)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 23 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total 40 / 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.

Related studies in Tau biomarkers

Also in Tau biomarkers

73 studies in the library are filed under Tau biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Tau biomarkers hub.

Similar studies

More on Tau biomarkers

See all studies in Tau biomarkers →