Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease
Márquez F, Yassa MA.. Molecular neurodegeneration, 2019-06-07
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Currently, over five million Americans suffer with Alzheimer's disease (AD). In the absence of a cure, this number could increase to 13.8 million by 2050. A critical goal of biomedical research is to establish indicators of AD during the preclinical stage (i.e. biomarkers) allowing for early diagnosis and intervention. Numerous advances have been made in developing biomarkers for AD using neuroimaging approaches. These approaches offer tremendous versatility in terms of targeting distinct age-related and pathophysiological mechanisms such as structural decline (e.g. volumetry, cortical thinning), functional decline (e.g. fMRI activity, network correlations), connectivity decline (e.g. diffusion anisotropy), and pathological aggregates (e.g. amyloid and tau PET). In this review, we survey the state of the literature on neuroimaging approaches to developing novel biomarkers for the amnestic form of AD, with an emphasis on combining approaches into multimodal biomarkers. We also discuss emerging methods including imaging epigenetics, neuroinflammation, and synaptic integrity using PET tracers. Finally, we review the complementary information that neuroimaging biomarkers provide, which highlights the potential utility of composite biomarkers as suitable outcome measures for proof-of-concept clinical trials with experimental therapeutics.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Márquez, F., & Yassa, M. A. (2019). Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease. Molecular neurodegeneration. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-019-0325-5
Vancouver
Márquez F, Yassa MA. Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease. Molecular neurodegeneration. 2019. doi:10.1186/s13024-019-0325-5. PMID: 31174557.
BibTeX
@article{marquez2019-31174557,
author = {Márquez, F. and Yassa, M. A.},
title = {{Neuroimaging Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease}},
journal = {Molecular neurodegeneration},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1186/s13024-019-0325-5},
pmid = {31174557},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13024-019-0325-5}
}
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.
Key findings
- Numerous advances have been made in developing biomarkers for AD using neuroimaging approaches.
- These approaches offer tremendous versatility in terms of targeting distinct age-related and pathophysiological mechanisms such as structural decline (e.g. volumetry, cortical thinning), functional decline (e.g. fMRI activity, network correlations), connectivity decline (e.g. diffusion anisotropy), and pathological aggregates (e.g. amyloid and tau PET).
- In this review, we survey the state of the literature on neuroimaging approaches to developing novel biomarkers for the amnestic form of AD, with an emphasis on combining approaches into multimodal biomarkers.
- We also discuss emerging methods including imaging epigenetics, neuroinflammation, and synaptic integrity using PET tracers.
- Finally, we review the complementary information that neuroimaging biomarkers provide, which highlights the potential utility of composite biomarkers as suitable outcome measures for proof-of-concept clinical trials with experimental therapeutics.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
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 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 (Molecular neurodegeneration) |
| 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 | 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 31174557) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “18f”
318 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 318 tagged studies.