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.

57/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 57 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

Neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), and Huntington's disease (HD), are significant global health challenges, owing to their profound impact on cognitive, motor, and behavioral functions. The etiology and progression of these disorders are influenced by a complex interplay of environmental factors and genetic predispositions with specific genetic markers, such as mutations in the APOE and HTT genes, which play pivotal roles. Current therapeutic interventions predominantly focus on symptom management; however, emerging strategies, including gene therapies, anti-amyloid agents, and neuroprotective approaches, are designed to directly target the underlying disease mechanisms. Advances in biomarker discovery and imaging methodologies have emerged as essential tools for early diagnosis and monitoring of therapeutic efficacy in these disorders. In the context of AD, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-beta (Aβ) and tau levels, along with positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, are well-established biomarkers. Similarly, CSF alpha-synuclein and dopamine transporter (DAT) imaging have been employed as diagnostic tools for PD. Moreover, emerging biomarkers, such as blood-based tau and the Aβ42/40 ratio for AD, as well as the neurofilament light chain (NfL) for ALS and PD, hold promise for enhancing early diagnostic accuracy and facilitating the longitudinal assessment of disease progression. This study comprehensively examined the molecular mechanisms underlying these neurodegenerative disorders, focusing on amyloid-beta plaque deposition and tau protein aggregation in AD, alpha-synuclein misfolding in PD, and aberrant protein aggregation in ALS and HD, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of the pathophysiological basis of these disorders.

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

APA 7th

Ali, N., Sayeed, U., Shahid, S. M. A., Akhtar, S., & Khan, M. K. A. (2025). Molecular mechanisms and biomarkers in neurodegenerative disorders: a comprehensive review. Molecular biology reports. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-025-10463-w

Vancouver

Ali N, Sayeed U, Shahid SMA, Akhtar S, Khan MKA. Molecular mechanisms and biomarkers in neurodegenerative disorders: a comprehensive review. Molecular biology reports. 2025. doi:10.1007/s11033-025-10463-w. PMID: 40138119.

BibTeX

@article{ali2025-40138119,
  author  = {Ali, N. and Sayeed, U. and Shahid, S. M. A. and Akhtar, S. and Khan, M. K. A.},
  title   = {{Molecular mechanisms and biomarkers in neurodegenerative disorders: a comprehensive review}},
  journal = {Molecular biology reports},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11033-025-10463-w},
  pmid    = {40138119},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-025-10463-w}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD), Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), and Huntington's disease (HD), are significant global health challenges, owing to their profound impact on cognitive, motor, and behavioral functions.

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

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 57/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Molecular biology reports)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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	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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40138119)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	33 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100.
Total	57 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “molecular-mechanisms”

5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “molecular-mechanisms”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →