Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Metals and neurodegenerative diseases. A systematic review
Cicero CE, Mostile G, Vasta R, Rapisarda V, Signorelli SS, Ferrante M, Zappia M, Nicoletti A.. Environmental research, 2017-08-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Neurodegenerative processes encompass a large variety of diseases with different pathological patterns and clinical presentation such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Alzheimer Disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). Genetic mutations have a known causative role, but the majority of cases are likely to be probably caused by a complex gene-environment interaction. Exposure to metals has been hypothesized to increase oxidative stress in brain cells leading to cell death and neurodegeneration. Neurotoxicity of metals has been demonstrated by several in vitro and in vivo experimental studies and it is likely that each metal could be toxic through specific pathways. The possible pathogenic role of different metals has been supported by some epidemiological evidences coming from occupational and ecological studies. In order to assess the possible association between metals and neurodegenerative disorders, several case-control studies have also been carried out evaluating the metals concentration in different biological specimens such as blood/serum/plasma, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), nail and hair, often reporting conflicting results. This review provides an overview of our current knowledge on the possible association between metals and ALS, AD and PD as main neurodegenerative disorders.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cicero, C. E., Mostile, G., Vasta, R., Rapisarda, V., Signorelli, S. S., Ferrante, M., et al. (2017). Metals and neurodegenerative diseases. A systematic review. Environmental research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.048
Vancouver
Cicero CE, Mostile G, Vasta R, Rapisarda V, Signorelli SS, Ferrante M, et al. Metals and neurodegenerative diseases. A systematic review. Environmental research. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.048. PMID: 28777965.
BibTeX
@article{cicero2017-28777965,
author = {Cicero, C. E. and Mostile, G. and Vasta, R. and Rapisarda, V. and Signorelli, S. S. and Ferrante, M. and Zappia, M. and Nicoletti, A.},
title = {{Metals and neurodegenerative diseases. A systematic review}},
journal = {Environmental research},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.048},
pmid = {28777965},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.048}
}
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
- Neurotoxicity of metals has been demonstrated by several in vitro and in vivo experimental studies and it is likely that each metal could be toxic through specific pathways.
- In order to assess the possible association between metals and neurodegenerative disorders, several case-control studies have also been carried out evaluating the metals concentration in different biological specimens such as blood/serum/plasma, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), nail and hair, often reporting conflicting results.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcase-control study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 62/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Environmental research) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| 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 | 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 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 28777965) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 36 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100. |
| Total | 62 / 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 Tau biomarkers
Also tagged “neurodegenerative”
7 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurodegenerative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 7 tagged studies.