Home › Research › Biomarkers
Neurofilament light chain: a biomarker for genetic frontotemporal dementia
Meeter LH, Dopper EG, Jiskoot LC, Sanchez-Valle R, Graff C, Benussi L, Ghidoni R, Pijnenburg YA et al.. Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2016-07-01
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Objective To evaluate cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels in genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD) as a potential biomarker in the presymptomatic stage and during the conversion into the symptomatic stage. Additionally, to correlate NfL levels to clinical and neuroimaging parameters. Methods In this multicenter case-control study, we investigated CSF NfL in 174 subjects (48 controls, 40 presymptomatic carriers and 86 patients with microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT), progranulin (GRN), and chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 (C9orf72) mutations), and serum NfL in 118 subjects (39 controls, 44 presymptomatic carriers, 35 patients). In 55 subjects both CSF and serum was determined. In two subjects CSF was available before and after symptom onset (converters). Additionally, NfL levels were correlated with clinical parameters, survival, and regional brain atrophy. Results CSF NfL levels in patients (median 6762 pg/mL, interquartile range 3186-9309 pg/mL) were strongly elevated compared with presymptomatic carriers (804 pg/mL, 627-1173 pg/mL, P < 0.001), resulting in a good diagnostic performance to discriminate both groups. Serum NfL correlated highly with CSF NfL (r s = 0.87, P < 0.001) and was similarly elevated in patients. Longitudinal samples in the converters showed a three- to fourfold increase in CSF NfL after disease onset. Additionally, NfL levels in patients correlated with disease severity, brain atrophy, annualized brain atrophy rate and survival. Interpretation NfL in both serum and CSF has the potential to serve as a biomarker for clinical disease onset and has a prognostic value in genetic FTD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Meeter, L. H., Dopper, E. G., Jiskoot, L. C., Sanchez-Valle, R., Graff, C., Benussi, L., et al. (2016). Neurofilament light chain: a biomarker for genetic frontotemporal dementia. Annals of clinical and translational neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.325
Vancouver
Meeter LH, Dopper EG, Jiskoot LC, Sanchez-Valle R, Graff C, Benussi L, et al. Neurofilament light chain: a biomarker for genetic frontotemporal dementia. Annals of clinical and translational neurology. 2016. doi:10.1002/acn3.325. PMID: 27606344.
BibTeX
@article{meeter2016-27606344,
author = {Meeter, L. H. and Dopper, E. G. and Jiskoot, L. C. and Sanchez-Valle, R. and Graff, C. and Benussi, L. and Ghidoni, R. and Pijnenburg, Y. A. and others},
title = {{Neurofilament light chain: a biomarker for genetic frontotemporal dementia}},
journal = {Annals of clinical and translational neurology},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1002/acn3.325},
pmid = {27606344},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.325}
}
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
- Results CSF NfL levels in patients (median 6762 pg/mL, interquartile range 3186-9309 pg/mL) were strongly elevated compared with presymptomatic carriers (804 pg/mL, 627-1173 pg/mL, P < 0.001), resulting in a good diagnostic performance to discriminate both groups.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcase-control study
- Participants174
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 62/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for effect reported 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 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 (Annals of clinical and translational neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 6 / 12 | A case-control study |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 174 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 27606344) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “neurofilament”
697 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurofilament”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 697 tagged studies.