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.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Baseline NfL and GFAP did not differ between patients with or without ARIA (ln[NfL] ECLIA 1.24 ± 0.38 pg/mL vs 1.25 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.77; ln[NfL] Simoa 2.87 ± 0.47 pg/mL vs 2.98 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.30, ln[GFAP] ECLIA 4.95 ± 0.36 pg/mL vs 4.88 ± 0.47 pg/mL, p = 0.69). No significant changes were seen at the timepoint preceding ARIA, and ARIA incidence made no detectable impact on biomarker trajectories. Biobanking in treatment clinics can evaluate clinical utility of BBMs as monitoring tools. These findings do not support a strong association between NfL or GFAP and ARIA in the ATT clinic.

Key findings

Baseline NfL and GFAP did not differ between patients with or without ARIA (ln[NfL] ECLIA 1.24 ± 0.38 pg/mL vs 1.25 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.77; ln[NfL] Simoa 2.87 ± 0.47 pg/mL vs 2.98 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.30, ln[GFAP] ECLIA 4.95 ± 0.36 pg/mL vs 4.88 ± 0.47 pg/mL, p = 0.69).
No significant changes were seen at the timepoint preceding ARIA, and ARIA incidence made no detectable impact on biomarker trajectories.
Biobanking in treatment clinics can evaluate clinical utility of BBMs as monitoring tools.
These findings do not support a strong association between NfL or GFAP and ARIA in the ATT clinic.

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

Study details

Participants15
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 55/100

Published in a leading specialty 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 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 55 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	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	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	15 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 42824090)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	31 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total	55 / 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

Schwartz, N. U., Ellingson, T., Nguyen, H., Lin, Z., Ashton, N. J., Dage, J. L., et al. (2026). Evaluation of plasma neurofilament and glial fibrillary acidic protein to predict or detect amyloid related imaging abnormalities. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70446

Vancouver

Schwartz NU, Ellingson T, Nguyen H, Lin Z, Ashton NJ, Dage JL, et al. Evaluation of plasma neurofilament and glial fibrillary acidic protein to predict or detect amyloid related imaging abnormalities. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2026. doi:10.1002/dad2.70446. PMID: 42824090.

BibTeX

@article{schwartz2026-42824090,
  author  = {Schwartz, Nicholas U and Ellingson, Tara and Nguyen, Hong and Lin, Zoe and Ashton, Nicholas J and Dage, Jeffrey L and Deniz, Kaancan and Dietz, Connor D and others},
  title   = {{Evaluation of plasma neurofilament and glial fibrillary acidic protein to predict or detect amyloid related imaging abnormalities}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1002/dad2.70446},
  pmid    = {42824090},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70446}
}

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 →