Home › Research › Biomarkers
Nanoparticle-based immunomagnetic assay of plasma biomarkers for differentiating dementia and prodromal states of Alzheimer's disease - A cross-validation study
Chiu MJ, Chen TF, Hu CJ, Yan SH, Sun Y, Liu BH, Chang YT, Yang CC et al.. Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine, 2020-03-25
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Blood-based biomarker assays of plasma β-amyloid (Aβ) and tau have the advantages of cost-effective and less invasive for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We used two independent cohorts to cross-validate the clinical use of the nanoparticle-based immunomagnetic assay of plasma biomarkers to assist in the differential diagnosis of early AD. There were in total 160 subjects in the derivation cohort, and 242 in the validation cohort both containing controls, mild cognitive impairment due to AD and AD dementia diagnosed according to the 2011 NIA-AA guidelines. The cutoff value for plasma Aβ 1-42 (16.4 pg/ml) performed the best in differentiating between controls and patients with prodromal or clinical AD, with 92.5% for positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and overall rate of agreement (ORA). Aβ 1-42 × tau (642.58) was useful for separating patients with dementia and prodromal states of AD, with 84.9% PPA, 78.8% NPA and 83% ORA.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chiu, M. J., Chen, T. F., Hu, C. J., Yan, S. H., Sun, Y., Liu, B. H., et al. (2020). Nanoparticle-based immunomagnetic assay of plasma biomarkers for differentiating dementia and prodromal states of Alzheimer's disease - A cross-validation study. Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2020.102182
Vancouver
Chiu MJ, Chen TF, Hu CJ, Yan SH, Sun Y, Liu BH, et al. Nanoparticle-based immunomagnetic assay of plasma biomarkers for differentiating dementia and prodromal states of Alzheimer's disease - A cross-validation study. Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2020.102182. PMID: 32222476.
BibTeX
@article{chiu2020-32222476,
author = {Chiu, M. J. and Chen, T. F. and Hu, C. J. and Yan, S. H. and Sun, Y. and Liu, B. H. and Chang, Y. T. and Yang, C. C. and others},
title = {{Nanoparticle-based immunomagnetic assay of plasma biomarkers for differentiating dementia and prodromal states of Alzheimer's disease - A cross-validation study}},
journal = {Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1016/j.nano.2020.102182},
pmid = {32222476},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2020.102182}
}
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
- The cutoff value for plasma Aβ 1-42 (16.4 pg/ml) performed the best in differentiating between controls and patients with prodromal or clinical AD, with 92.5% for positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and overall rate of agreement (ORA).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants160
- Effect size92.5%; 84.9%; 78.8%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine) |
| 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 | 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 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 160 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 32222476) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 “differentiating”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “differentiating”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.