Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma and CSF neurofilament light: Relation to longitudinal neuroimaging and cognitive measures
Mielke MM, Syrjanen JA, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, Vemuri P, Skoog I, Machulda MM, Kremers WK et al.. Neurology, 2019-06-10
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Objective We aimed to (1) assess and compare baseline plasma and CSF neurofilament light (NfL) for cross-sectional and longitudinal associations with neuroimaging or cognition and (2) determine whether change in plasma NfL corresponded with change in these outcomes. Methods Seventy-nine participants without dementia, median age 76 years, had plasma and CSF NfL, neuropsychological testing, and neuroimaging (MRI, amyloid PET, FDG-PET) at the same study visit, and a repeat visit (15 or 30 months later) with both plasma NfL and neuroimaging. Plasma NfL was measured on the Simoa-HD1 Platform and CSF NfL with an in-house ELISA. Linear mixed effects models were used to examine the associations between baseline plasma or CSF NfL and cognitive and neuroimaging outcomes adjusting for age, sex, and education. The relationship between change in plasma NfL and change in the outcomes was assessed using linear regression. Results There were no cross-sectional associations between CSF or plasma NfL and any neuroimaging or cognitive measure. Longitudinally, higher baseline plasma NfL was associated with worsening in all neuroimaging measures, except amyloid PET, and global cognition. Higher baseline CSF NfL was associated with worsening in cortical thickness and diffusion MRI. The beta estimates for CSF NfL were similar to those for plasma NfL. Change in plasma NfL was associated with change in global cognition, attention, and amyloid PET. Conclusion Elevated baseline plasma NfL is a prognostic marker of cognitive decline and neuroimaging measures of neurodegeneration, and has similar effect sizes to baseline CSF NfL. Change in plasma NfL also tracked with short-term cognitive change.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mielke, M. M., Syrjanen, J. A., Blennow, K., Zetterberg, H., Vemuri, P., Skoog, I., et al. (2019). Plasma and CSF neurofilament light: Relation to longitudinal neuroimaging and cognitive measures. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000007767
Vancouver
Mielke MM, Syrjanen JA, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, Vemuri P, Skoog I, et al. Plasma and CSF neurofilament light: Relation to longitudinal neuroimaging and cognitive measures. Neurology. 2019. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000007767. PMID: 31182505.
BibTeX
@article{mielke2019-31182505,
author = {Mielke, M. M. and Syrjanen, J. A. and Blennow, K. and Zetterberg, H. and Vemuri, P. and Skoog, I. and Machulda, M. M. and Kremers, W. K. and others},
title = {{Plasma and CSF neurofilament light: Relation to longitudinal neuroimaging and cognitive measures}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000007767},
pmid = {31182505},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000007767}
}
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 There were no cross-sectional associations between CSF or plasma NfL and any neuroimaging or cognitive measure.
- Longitudinally, higher baseline plasma NfL was associated with worsening in all neuroimaging measures, except amyloid PET, and global cognition.
- Higher baseline CSF NfL was associated with worsening in cortical thickness and diffusion MRI.
- Change in plasma NfL was associated with change in global cognition, attention, and amyloid PET.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in 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 | 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 31182505) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 32 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 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 “diffusion”
171 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diffusion”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 171 tagged studies.