Home › Research › Biomarkers
Multivariate Platelet Analysis Differentiates Between Patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Healthy Controls at First Clinical Diagnosis
Wiest I, Wiemers T, Kraus MJ, Neeb H, Strasser EF, Hausner L, Frölich L, Bugert P.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2019-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is challenging, and easily accessible biomarkers are an unmet need. Blood platelets frequently serve as peripheral model for studying AD pathogenesis and might represent a reasonable biomarker source. Objective In the present study, we investigated the potential to differentiate AD patients from healthy controls (HC) based on blood count, platelet morphology, and function as well as molecular markers at the time of first clinical diagnosis. Methods Blood samples from 40 AD patients and 29 age-matched HC were included for determination of 78 parameter by blood counting, platelet morphometry, aggregometry, flow cytometry (CD62P, CD63, activated fibrinogen receptor), protein quantification of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor α7 (nAChRα7) and caveolin-1 (CAV-1), and miRNA quantification (miR-26b, miR-199a, miR-335). Group comparison between patients and controls was performed in univariate and multivariate statistical analyses. Results AD patients showed significantly lower aggregation response to ADP and arachidonic acid and significantly decreased CD62P and CD63 surface expression induced by ADP and U46619 compared to HC. Relative nAChRα7 and CAV-1 expression was significantly higher AD platelets than in HC. Multivariate analysis of 63 parameter revealed significant differences between AD patients and healthy controls. The best performing feature model revealed a sensitivity of 96.6%, a specificity of 80.0%, and a positive predictive value of 89.3%. No grouping could be achieved by using single parameter groups. Conclusion Significant differences between platelet characteristics from AD patients and HC at the time of first clinical diagnosis were observed. The best performing parameter can be used as a blood-based biomarker for AD diagnosis in a multivariate model in addition to the standardized mental tests.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wiest, I., Wiemers, T., Kraus, M. J., Neeb, H., Strasser, E. F., Hausner, L., et al. (2019). Multivariate Platelet Analysis Differentiates Between Patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Healthy Controls at First Clinical Diagnosis. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190574
Vancouver
Wiest I, Wiemers T, Kraus MJ, Neeb H, Strasser EF, Hausner L, et al. Multivariate Platelet Analysis Differentiates Between Patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Healthy Controls at First Clinical Diagnosis. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2019. doi:10.3233/jad-190574. PMID: 31450503.
BibTeX
@article{wiest2019-31450503,
author = {Wiest, I. and Wiemers, T. and Kraus, M. J. and Neeb, H. and Strasser, E. F. and Hausner, L. and Frölich, L. and Bugert, P.},
title = {{Multivariate Platelet Analysis Differentiates Between Patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Healthy Controls at First Clinical Diagnosis}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.3233/jad-190574},
pmid = {31450503},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190574}
}
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
- Results AD patients showed significantly lower aggregation response to ADP and arachidonic acid and significantly decreased CD62P and CD63 surface expression induced by ADP and U46619 compared to HC.
- Relative nAChRα7 and CAV-1 expression was significantly higher AD platelets than in HC.
- Multivariate analysis of 63 parameter revealed significant differences between AD patients and healthy controls.
- The best performing feature model revealed a sensitivity of 96.6%, a specificity of 80.0%, and a positive predictive value of 89.3%.
- Conclusion Significant differences between platelet characteristics from AD patients and HC at the time of first clinical diagnosis were observed.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Effect size96.6%; 80.0%; 89.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 2019 — 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 31450503) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 tagged “clinical-diagnosis”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “clinical-diagnosis”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.