Home › Research › Biomarkers
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus has a different cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profile from Alzheimer's disease
Jingami N, Asada-Utsugi M, Uemura K, Noto R, Takahashi M, Ozaki A, Kihara T, Kageyama T et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2015-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The diagnosis of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is sometimes complicated by concomitant Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. The purpose of the present study is to identify an iNPH-specific cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker dynamics and to assess its ability to differentiate iNPH from AD. Total tau (t-tau), tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau), amyloid-β (Aβ) 42 and 40, and leucine-rich α-2-glycoprotein (LRG) were measured in 93 consecutive CSF samples consisting of 55 iNPH (46 tap test responders), 20 AD, 11 corticobasal syndrome, and 7 spinocerebeller disease. Levels of t-tau and p-tau were significantly decreased in iNPH patients especially in tap test responders compared to AD. Correlation was observed between Mini-Mental State Examination scores and Aβ42 in AD (R = 0.44) and mildly in iNPH (R = 0.28). Although Aβ42/40 ratio showed no significant difference between iNPH and AD (p = 0.08), the levels of Aβ40 and Aβ42 correlated positively with each other in iNPH (R = 0.73) but much less in AD (R = 0.26), suggesting that they have discrete amyloid clearance and pathology. LRG levels did not differ between the two. Thus, our study shows that although CSF biomarkers of iNPH patients can be affected by concomitant tau and/or amyloid pathology, CSF t-tau and p-tau are highly useful for differentiation of iNPH and AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jingami, N., Asada-Utsugi, M., Uemura, K., Noto, R., Takahashi, M., Ozaki, A., et al. (2015). Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus has a different cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profile from Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-142622
Vancouver
Jingami N, Asada-Utsugi M, Uemura K, Noto R, Takahashi M, Ozaki A, et al. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus has a different cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profile from Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2015. doi:10.3233/jad-142622. PMID: 25428256.
BibTeX
@article{jingami2015-25428256,
author = {Jingami, N. and Asada-Utsugi, M. and Uemura, K. and Noto, R. and Takahashi, M. and Ozaki, A. and Kihara, T. and Kageyama, T. and others},
title = {{Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus has a different cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profile from Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.3233/jad-142622},
pmid = {25428256},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-142622}
}
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
- Levels of t-tau and p-tau were significantly decreased in iNPH patients especially in tap test responders compared to AD.
- Although Aβ42/40 ratio showed no significant difference between iNPH and AD (p = 0.08), the levels of Aβ40 and Aβ42 correlated positively with each other in iNPH (R = 0.73) but much less in AD (R = 0.26), suggesting that they have discrete amyloid clearance and pathology.
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 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 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 (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 2015 — 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 25428256) |
| 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “pressure-hydrocephalus”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “pressure-hydrocephalus”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.