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.

60/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Background Collection of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for measurement of amyloid-β (Aβ) species is a gold standard in Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis, but has risks. Thus, establishing a low-risk blood Aβ test with high AD sensitivity and specificity is of outmost interest. Objective We evaluated the ability of a commercially available plasma Aβ assay to distinguish AD patients from biomarker-healthy controls. Method In a case-control design, we examined plasma samples from 44 AD patients (A + N+) and 49 controls (A-N-) from a memory clinic. AD was diagnosed using a combination of neuropsychological examination, CSF biomarker analysis and brain imaging. Total Aβ40 and total Aβ42 in plasma were measured through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technology using ABtest40 and ABtest42 test kits (Araclon Biotech Ltd.). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses with outcome AD were performed, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results Plasma Aβ42/40 was weakly positively correlated with CSF Aβ42/40 (Spearman's rho 0.22; p = 0.037). Plasma Aβ42/40 alone was not able to statistically significantly distinguish between AD patients and controls (AUC 0.58; 95% CI 0.46, 0.70). At a cut-point of 0.076 maximizing sensitivity and specificity, plasma Aβ42/40 had a sensitivity of 61.2% and a specificity of 63.6%. Conclusion In this sample, the high-throughput blood Aβ assay was not able to distinguish well between AD patients and controls. Whether or not the assay may be useful in large-scale epidemiological settings remains to be seen.

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

APA 7th

Feinkohl, I., Schipke, C. G., Kruppa, J., Menne, F., Winterer, G., Pischon, T., et al. (2020). Plasma Amyloid Concentration in Alzheimer's Disease: Performance of a High-Throughput Amyloid Assay in Distinguishing Alzheimer's Disease Cases from Controls. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200046

Vancouver

Feinkohl I, Schipke CG, Kruppa J, Menne F, Winterer G, Pischon T, et al. Plasma Amyloid Concentration in Alzheimer's Disease: Performance of a High-Throughput Amyloid Assay in Distinguishing Alzheimer's Disease Cases from Controls. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2020. doi:10.3233/jad-200046. PMID: 32176645.

BibTeX

@article{feinkohl2020-32176645,
  author  = {Feinkohl, I. and Schipke, C. G. and Kruppa, J. and Menne, F. and Winterer, G. and Pischon, T. and Peters, O.},
  title   = {{Plasma Amyloid Concentration in Alzheimer's Disease: Performance of a High-Throughput Amyloid Assay in Distinguishing Alzheimer's Disease Cases from Controls}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-200046},
  pmid    = {32176645},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-200046}
}

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 7 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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a case-control study. People with the condition are compared with people without it, looking backward at past exposures. Recall of the past can be uneven between the groups, and the design shows association, not cause.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record reports “AUC 0.58; 61.2%; 63.6%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Plasma Aβ42/40 was weakly positively correlated with CSF Aβ42/40 (Spearman's rho 0.22; p = 0.037).
Plasma Aβ42/40 alone was not able to statistically significantly distinguish between AD patients and controls (AUC 0.58; 95% CI 0.46, 0.70).

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

Study details

Study designcase-control study
Effect sizeAUC 0.58; 61.2%; 63.6%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 60/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 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	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	2 / 5	2020 — 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	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32176645)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	35 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100.
Total	60 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “distinguishing”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “distinguishing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →