Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

The need for a reliable, simple, and inexpensive blood test for Alzheimer's disease (AD) suitable for use in a primary care setting is widely recognized. This has led to a large number of publications describing blood tests for AD, which have, for the most part, not been replicable. We have chosen to examine transcripts expressed by the cellular, leukocyte compartment of blood. We have used hypothesis-based cDNA arrays and quantitative PCR to quantify the expression of selected sets of genes followed by multivariate analyses in multiple independent samples. Rather than a single study with no replicates, we chose an experimental design in which there were multiple replicates using different platforms and different sample populations. We have divided 177 blood samples and 27 brain samples into multiple replicates to demonstrate the ability to distinguish early clinical AD (Clinical Dementia Rating scale 0.5), Parkinson's disease (PD), and cognitively unimpaired APOE4 homozygotes, as well as to determine persons at risk for future cognitive impairment with significant accuracy. We assess our methods in a training/test set and also show that the variables we use distinguish AD, PD, and control brain. Importantly, we describe the variability of the weights assigned to individual transcripts in multivariate analyses in repeated studies and suggest that the variability we describe may be the cause of inability to repeat many earlier studies. Our data constitute a proof of principle that multivariate analysis of the transcriptome related to cell stress and inflammation of peripheral blood leukocytes has significant potential as a minimally invasive and inexpensive diagnostic tool for diagnosis and early detection of risk for AD.

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

APA 7th

Delvaux, E., Mastroeni, D., Nolz, J., Chow, N., Sabbagh, M., Caselli, R. J., et al. (2017). Multivariate analyses of peripheral blood leukocyte transcripts distinguish Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, control, and those at risk for developing Alzheimer's. Neurobiology of aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.05.012

Vancouver

Delvaux E, Mastroeni D, Nolz J, Chow N, Sabbagh M, Caselli RJ, et al. Multivariate analyses of peripheral blood leukocyte transcripts distinguish Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, control, and those at risk for developing Alzheimer's. Neurobiology of aging. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.05.012. PMID: 28716532.

BibTeX

@article{delvaux2017-28716532,
  author  = {Delvaux, E. and Mastroeni, D. and Nolz, J. and Chow, N. and Sabbagh, M. and Caselli, R. J. and Reiman, E. M. and Marshall, F. J. and others},
  title   = {{Multivariate analyses of peripheral blood leukocyte transcripts distinguish Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, control, and those at risk for developing Alzheimer's}},
  journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.05.012},
  pmid    = {28716532},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.05.012}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 38/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 22 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 38 of 100. Total 38 of 100.22 of the 58 points we could judge = 38 of 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 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of aging)
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 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 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 28716532)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 22 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total 38 / 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 in Biomarkers

208 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →