Home › Research › Biomarkers
GFAP as a Potential Biomarker for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Kim KY, Shin KY, Chang KA.. Cells, 2023-05-04
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Blood biomarkers have been considered tools for the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although amyloid-β peptide (Aβ) and tau are primarily blood biomarkers, recent studies have identified other reliable candidates that can serve as measurable indicators of pathological conditions. One such candidate is the glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), an astrocytic cytoskeletal protein that can be detected in blood samples. Increasing evidence suggests that blood GFAP levels can be used to detect early-stage AD. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate GFAP in peripheral blood as a biomarker for AD and provide an overview of the evidence regarding its utility. Our analysis revealed that the GFAP level in the blood was higher in the Aβ-positive group than in the negative groups, and in individuals with AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) compared to the healthy controls. Therefore, we believe that the clinical use of blood GFAP measurements has the potential to accelerate the diagnosis and improve the prognosis of AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kim, K. Y., Shin, K. Y., & Chang, K. A. (2023). GFAP as a Potential Biomarker for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cells. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12091309
Vancouver
Kim KY, Shin KY, Chang KA. GFAP as a Potential Biomarker for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cells. 2023. doi:10.3390/cells12091309. PMID: 37174709.
BibTeX
@article{kim2023-37174709,
author = {Kim, K. Y. and Shin, K. Y. and Chang, K. A.},
title = {{GFAP as a Potential Biomarker for Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}},
journal = {Cells},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3390/cells12091309},
pmid = {37174709},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12091309}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Increasing evidence suggests that blood GFAP levels can be used to detect early-stage AD.
- Our analysis revealed that the GFAP level in the blood was higher in the Aβ-positive group than in the negative groups, and in individuals with AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) compared to the healthy controls.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Cells) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” 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 | 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 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 37174709) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “neurofilament”
697 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurofilament”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 697 tagged studies.