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 46 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

In the last 2 years, there have been 3 successful trials of antiamyloid antibodies in Alzheimer disease (AD): aducanemab, now controversially US Food and Drug Administration-approved under the accelerated approval pathway1; lecanemab, now FDA-approved2; and donanemab, now going through the approval process.3 All 3 share a common broad mechanism, that is, antibody-mediated removal of β-amyloid (Aβ) from the brain, and this is almost certainly the basis of their therapeutic action.4 When used in the earliest symptomatic stages of AD, all have modest clinical effects, all clear Aβ from the brain, and all show evidence for some changes in molecular markers believed to be downstream of Aβ accumulation in keeping with disease modification.4 However, all these drugs-and several other antiamyloid immunotherapies that failed to show positive effects in clinical trials (e.g. bapineuzemab and gantenerumab)5,6-have the troubling adverse event of antibody-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). ARIA can take the form of vasogenic edema or sulcal effusion (ARIA-E) or haemosiderin deposition due to hemorrhage (ARIA-H).7 In vivo, ARIA is detected using MRI: ARIA-E is visible on fluid attenuation inversion recovery sequences; ARIA-H is best seen on iron-sensitive (T2* or susceptibility-weighted imaging) as microbleeds and/or superficial hemosiderin deposition. The pathophysiology of ARIA has yet to be fully determined but may result from antibody-mediated breakdown of amyloid plaques releasing Aβ which is deposited in vessels leading to increased cerebral amyloid angiopathy or alterations in perivascular clearance or inflammation, possibly through complement activation.8.

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

APA 7th

Hardy, J., & Schott, J. M. (2024). Identifying Genetic Risk for Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000208096

Vancouver

Hardy J, Schott JM. Identifying Genetic Risk for Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities. Neurology. 2024. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000208096. PMID: 38165303.

BibTeX

@article{hardy2024-38165303,
  author  = {Hardy, John and Schott, Jonathan M},
  title   = {{Identifying Genetic Risk for Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000208096},
  pmid    = {38165303},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000208096}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 46/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 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 4 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 left out, no data. 26 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 46 of 100. Total 46 of 100.26 of the 56 points we could judge = 46 of 100

Published in a leading specialty 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
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 4 / 5 2024 — within 3 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 38165303)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 26 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100.
Total 46 / 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 Treatments

Also tagged “aducanumab”

332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “aducanumab”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →