alzhub.org
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.

Home › Research › Biomarkers

Objective subtle cognitive decline and plasma phosphorylated tau181: Early markers of Alzheimer's disease-related declines

Thomas KR, Bangen KJ, Edmonds EC, Weigand AJ, Walker KS, Bondi MW, Galasko DR, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021-10-14

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 71 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Introduction Objectively-defined subtle cognitive decline (Obj-SCD) and plasma phosphorylated-tau181 (p-tau181) are promising early Alzheimer's disease (AD) markers. However, associations between Obj-SCD and p-tau181, and their combined prognostic potential, are unknown. Methods Baseline and 4-year longitudinal p-tau181 changes were compared across cognitively unimpaired (CU; n = 402), Obj-SCD ( n = 199), and mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 346) groups. CU and Obj-SCD participants were further classified as p-tau181-positive or negative. Results CU and Obj-SCD has lower baseline p-tau181 than MCI and did not differ from one another. Longitudinally, Obj-SCD had the steepest p-tau181 increase. Obj-SCD/p-tau181-positive participants had the fastest rates of amyloid accumulation, cognitive decline, and functional decline. Conclusions Despite assumptions that cognitive changes invariably follow biomarker changes, early neuropsychological difficulties may emerge before/concurrently with plasma p-tau181 changes. Combining Obj-SCD and p-tau181, two potentially accessible early markers, was associated with the faster declines in AD-related outcomes.

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

APA 7th

Thomas, K. R., Bangen, K. J., Edmonds, E. C., Weigand, A. J., Walker, K. S., Bondi, M. W., et al. (2021). Objective subtle cognitive decline and plasma phosphorylated tau181: Early markers of Alzheimer's disease-related declines. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12238

Vancouver

Thomas KR, Bangen KJ, Edmonds EC, Weigand AJ, Walker KS, Bondi MW, et al. Objective subtle cognitive decline and plasma phosphorylated tau181: Early markers of Alzheimer's disease-related declines. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2021. doi:10.1002/dad2.12238. PMID: 34692978.

BibTeX

@article{thomas2021-34692978,
  author  = {Thomas, K. R. and Bangen, K. J. and Edmonds, E. C. and Weigand, A. J. and Walker, K. S. and Bondi, M. W. and Galasko, D. R. and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
  title   = {{Objective subtle cognitive decline and plasma phosphorylated tau181: Early markers of Alzheimer's disease-related declines}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1002/dad2.12238},
  pmid    = {34692978},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12238}
}

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

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

How this study scored 71/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 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 2 of 2. 41 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 71 of 100. Total 71 of 100.41 of the 58 points we could judge = 71 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands))
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
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 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 402 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 34692978)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 41 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100.
Total 71 / 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

204 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 →