Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain distinguish neurodegenerative from primary psychiatric conditions in a clinical setting
Dhamidhu Eratne, Matthew J Y Kang, Courtney Lewis, Christa Dang, Charles B Malpas, Michael Keem, Jasleen Grewal, Vladimir Marinov et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2024-10-06
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
A total of 337 participants were included: 136 ND, 77 PPD, and 124 Controls. Plasma NfL was 2.5-fold elevated in ND compared to PPD and had strong diagnostic performance (area under the curve, [AUC]: 0.86, 81%/85% specificity/sensitivity) that was comparable to CSF NfL (2-fold elevated, AUC: 0.89, 95%/71% specificity/sensitivity). Diagnostic performance was especially strong in younger people (40- < 60 years). Additional findings were cutoffs optimized for sensitivity and specificity, and issues important for future clinical translation. This study adds important evidence for a simple blood-based biomarker to assist as a screening test for neurodegeneration and distinction from PPD, in clinical settings. HIGHLIGHTS: NfL levels were significantly higher in ND versus PPD. Plasma NfL showed strong diagnostic performance, comparable to CSF NfL, to distinguish ND from PPD. Diagnostic performance was higher in younger people, where diagnostic challenges are greater. Further research is needed on analytical and reference range factors, for clinical translation. These findings support a simple screening blood test for neurodegeneration.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Eratne, D., Kang, M. J. Y., Lewis, C., Dang, C., Malpas, C. B., Keem, M., et al. (2024). Plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain distinguish neurodegenerative from primary psychiatric conditions in a clinical setting. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14278
Vancouver
Eratne D, Kang MJY, Lewis C, Dang C, Malpas CB, Keem M, et al. Plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain distinguish neurodegenerative from primary psychiatric conditions in a clinical setting. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.14278. PMID: 39369278.
BibTeX
@article{eratne2024-39369278,
author = {Eratne, Dhamidhu and Kang, Matthew J Y and Lewis, Courtney and Dang, Christa and Malpas, Charles B and Keem, Michael and Grewal, Jasleen and Marinov, Vladimir and others},
title = {{Plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain distinguish neurodegenerative from primary psychiatric conditions in a clinical setting}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/alz.14278},
pmid = {39369278},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14278}
}
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
- A total of 337 participants were included: 136 ND, 77 PPD, and 124 Controls.
- Plasma NfL was 2.5-fold elevated in ND compared to PPD and had strong diagnostic performance (area under the curve, [AUC]: 0.86, 81%/85% specificity/sensitivity) that was comparable to CSF NfL (2-fold elevated, AUC: 0.89, 95%/71% specificity/sensitivity).
- Diagnostic performance was especially strong in younger people (40- < 60 years).
- Additional findings were cutoffs optimized for sensitivity and specificity, and issues important for future clinical translation.
- This study adds important evidence for a simple blood-based biomarker to assist as a screening test for neurodegeneration and distinction from PPD, in clinical settings.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants337
- Effect sizeAUC: 0.89
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 61/100
Published in a leading specialty 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 61 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 337 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 39369278) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 34 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 61 out of 100. |
| Total | 61 / 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.