Home › Research › Biomarkers
Glial reaction in the hippocampal formation is highly correlated with aging in human brain
David JP, Ghozali F, Fallet-Bianco C, Wattez A, Delaine S, Boniface B, Di Menza C, Delacourte A.. Neuroscience letters, 1997-10-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), a biochemical marker of astrocytes and glial reaction, was quantified by immunoblotting in different brain areas from 33 non-demented patients with a Mini Mental State Examination score above 26 and aged from 12 to 98 years. An increase of GFAP with age was first found in the hippocampus and then in the entorhinal cortex. In both regions, GFAP amounts were correlated with age (r = 0.768). In the isocortex, the increase of GFAP as a function of age was also significant (r = 0.672), but less than for the hippocampal region. GFAP levels increased dramatically after the age of 65 years, and more especially in the hippocampal formation. This glial reaction was observed in aged controls that do not show cognitive impairment and the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
David, J. P., Ghozali, F., Fallet-Bianco, C., Wattez, A., Delaine, S., Boniface, B., et al. (1997). Glial reaction in the hippocampal formation is highly correlated with aging in human brain. Neuroscience letters. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(97)00708-8
Vancouver
David JP, Ghozali F, Fallet-Bianco C, Wattez A, Delaine S, Boniface B, et al. Glial reaction in the hippocampal formation is highly correlated with aging in human brain. Neuroscience letters. 1997. doi:10.1016/s0304-3940(97)00708-8. PMID: 9389594.
BibTeX
@article{david1997-9389594,
author = {David, J. P. and Ghozali, F. and Fallet-Bianco, C. and Wattez, A. and Delaine, S. and Boniface, B. and Di Menza, C. and Delacourte, A.},
title = {{Glial reaction in the hippocampal formation is highly correlated with aging in human brain}},
journal = {Neuroscience letters},
year = {1997},
doi = {10.1016/s0304-3940(97)00708-8},
pmid = {9389594},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(97)00708-8}
}
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.
Key findings
- In the isocortex, the increase of GFAP as a function of age was also significant (r = 0.672), but less than for the hippocampal region.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience letters) |
| 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 | 1997 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 9389594) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.