Home › Research › Biomarkers
α-klotho as a biomarker of amyloid β levels in the cerebrospinal fluid
Jacob Raber, Alexandra Pederson, Emily Bunnell, Nora Mattek, Nora E Gray, Steven G Kohama, Alison R Weiss, Joseph F Quinn et al.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2025-06-23
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
HT was associated with increased CSF α-klotho levels. Furthermore, α-klotho and Aβ levels were correlated in a species- and cognitive health-dependent fashion. Higher CSF and serum levels of α-klotho were seen in controls than in patients with dementia. Understanding the species differences in the beneficial effects of α-klotho on CSF Aβ physiology should open new avenues for treating AD.
Key findings
- HT was associated with increased CSF α-klotho levels.
- Furthermore, α-klotho and Aβ levels were correlated in a species- and cognitive health-dependent fashion.
- Higher CSF and serum levels of α-klotho were seen in controls than in patients with dementia.
- Understanding the species differences in the beneficial effects of α-klotho on CSF Aβ physiology should open new avenues for treating AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience) |
| 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 | 2025 — 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 40625374) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Raber, J., Pederson, A., Bunnell, E., Mattek, N., Gray, N. E., Kohama, S. G., et al. (2025). α-klotho as a biomarker of amyloid β levels in the cerebrospinal fluid. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2025.1599402
Vancouver
Raber J, Pederson A, Bunnell E, Mattek N, Gray NE, Kohama SG, et al. α-klotho as a biomarker of amyloid β levels in the cerebrospinal fluid. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2025. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2025.1599402. PMID: 40625374.
BibTeX
@article{raber2025-40625374,
author = {Raber, Jacob and Pederson, Alexandra and Bunnell, Emily and Mattek, Nora and Gray, Nora E and Kohama, Steven G and Weiss, Alison R and Quinn, Joseph F and others},
title = {{α-klotho as a biomarker of amyloid β levels in the cerebrospinal fluid}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2025.1599402},
pmid = {40625374},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2025.1599402}
}
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “blood-based”
698 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 698 tagged studies.