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.

63/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Brain scans and imaging

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Results Of the 525 patients, 210 (40.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (8.4) years. Three- and 1-year progression risks were 86% (95% CI, 71%-95%) and 27% (95% CI, 17%-41%) when MRI results were abnormal, 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%) and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) when CSF test results were abnormal, and 89% (95% CI, 79%-95%) and 26% (95% CI, 18%-36%) when the results of both tests were abnormal. Conversely, 3- and 1-year progression risks were 18% (95% CI, 13%-27%) and 3% (95% CI, 2%-5%) after normal MRI results, 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%) and 1% (95% CI, 0.5%-2%) after normal CSF test results, and 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1%) after combined normal MRI and CSF test results. External validation in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 showed that our models were highly robust.

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

APA 7th

van Maurik, I. S., Zwan, M. D., Tijms, B. M., Bouwman, F. H., Teunissen, C. E., Scheltens, P., et al. (2017). Interpreting Biomarker Results in Individual Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Alzheimer's Biomarkers in Daily Practice (ABIDE) Project. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2712

Vancouver

van Maurik IS, Zwan MD, Tijms BM, Bouwman FH, Teunissen CE, Scheltens P, et al. Interpreting Biomarker Results in Individual Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Alzheimer's Biomarkers in Daily Practice (ABIDE) Project. JAMA neurology. 2017. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2712. PMID: 29049480.

BibTeX

@article{vanmaurik2017-29049480,
  author  = {van Maurik, I. S. and Zwan, M. D. and Tijms, B. M. and Bouwman, F. H. and Teunissen, C. E. and Scheltens, P. and Wattjes, M. P. and Barkhof, F. and others},
  title   = {{Interpreting Biomarker Results in Individual Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Alzheimer's Biomarkers in Daily Practice (ABIDE) Project}},
  journal = {JAMA neurology},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2712},
  pmid    = {29049480},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2712}
}

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

Results Of the 525 patients, 210 (40.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (8.4) years.
Three- and 1-year progression risks were 86% (95% CI, 71%-95%) and 27% (95% CI, 17%-41%) when MRI results were abnormal, 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%) and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) when CSF test results were abnormal, and 89% (95% CI, 79%-95%) and 26% (95% CI, 18%-36%) when the results of both tests were abnormal.
Conversely, 3- and 1-year progression risks were 18% (95% CI, 13%-27%) and 3% (95% CI, 2%-5%) after normal MRI results, 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%) and 1% (95% CI, 0.5%-2%) after normal CSF test results, and 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1%) after combined normal MRI and CSF test results.
External validation in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 showed that our models were highly robust.

Why it matters

In patients with mild cognitive impairment, abnormal MRI or CSF biomarker results were linked to much higher short- and long-term risks of progressing to dementia, while normal results meant much lower risk. These models could help estimate an individual patient's progression risk, though they do not test a treatment.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Participants525
Effect size40.0%; 0.5%; 0.2%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 63/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 60 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Neurology: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	525 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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	4 / 7	Cited 90 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	3 / 5	8.2 citations a year over 11 year(s) since 2017
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 8.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	3 / 6	Cited by 13 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 17 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29049480)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	60 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 60 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100.
Total	63 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 23.

Later studies that cite this one

13 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Brain scans and imaging

Also tagged “cerebrospinal”

821 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cerebrospinal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 821 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Brain scans and imaging

See all studies in Brain scans and imaging →