Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: a field-test in a memory clinic
Altomare D, Stampacchia S, Ribaldi F, Tomczyk S, Chevalier C, Poulain G, Asadi S, Bancila B et al.. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2023-04-03
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background The key Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers are traditionally measured with techniques/exams that are either expensive (amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) and tau-PET), invasive (cerebrospinal fluid Aβ 42 and p-tau 181 ), or poorly specific (atrophy on MRI and hypometabolism on fluorodeoxyglucose-PET). Recently developed plasma biomarkers could significantly enhance the efficiency of the diagnostic pathway in memory clinics and improve patient care. This study aimed to: (1) confirm the correlations between plasma and traditional AD biomarkers, (2) assess the diagnostic accuracy of plasma biomarkers as compared with traditional biomarkers, and (3) estimate the proportion of traditional exams potentially saved thanks to the use of plasma biomarkers. Methods Participants were 200 patients with plasma biomarkers and at least one traditional biomarker collected within 12 months. Results Overall, plasma biomarkers significantly correlated with biomarkers assessed through traditional techniques: up to r =0.50 (p<0.001) among amyloid, r =0.43 (p=0.002) among tau, and r =-0.23 (p=0.001) among neurodegeneration biomarkers. Moreover, plasma biomarkers showed high accuracy in discriminating the biomarker status (normal or abnormal) determined by using traditional biomarkers: up to area under the curve (AUC)=0.87 for amyloid, AUC=0.82 for tau, and AUC=0.63 for neurodegeneration status. The use of plasma as a gateway to traditional biomarkers using cohort-specific thresholds (with 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity) could save up to 49% of amyloid, 38% of tau, and 16% of neurodegeneration biomarkers. Conclusion The implementation of plasma biomarkers could save a remarkable proportion of more expensive traditional exams, making the diagnostic workup more cost-effective and improving patient care.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Altomare, D., Stampacchia, S., Ribaldi, F., Tomczyk, S., Chevalier, C., Poulain, G., et al. (2023). Plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: a field-test in a memory clinic. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2022-330619
Vancouver
Altomare D, Stampacchia S, Ribaldi F, Tomczyk S, Chevalier C, Poulain G, et al. Plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: a field-test in a memory clinic. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2023. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2022-330619. PMID: 37012066.
BibTeX
@article{altomare2023-37012066,
author = {Altomare, D. and Stampacchia, S. and Ribaldi, F. and Tomczyk, S. and Chevalier, C. and Poulain, G. and Asadi, S. and Bancila, B. and others},
title = {{Plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: a field-test in a memory clinic}},
journal = {Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1136/jnnp-2022-330619},
pmid = {37012066},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2022-330619}
}
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
- Recently developed plasma biomarkers could significantly enhance the efficiency of the diagnostic pathway in memory clinics and improve patient care.
- This study aimed to: (1) confirm the correlations between plasma and traditional AD biomarkers, (2) assess the diagnostic accuracy of plasma biomarkers as compared with traditional biomarkers, and (3) estimate the proportion of traditional exams potentially saved thanks to the use of plasma biomarkers.
- Results Overall, plasma biomarkers significantly correlated with biomarkers assessed through traditional techniques: up to r =0.50 (p<0.001) among amyloid, r =0.43 (p=0.002) among tau, and r =-0.23 (p=0.001) among neurodegeneration biomarkers.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants200
- Effect sizeAUC=0.82; AUC=0.63
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry) |
| 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 | 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 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 200 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) |
| 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 37012066) |
| 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.
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 “plasma-biomarkers”
6 studies in the library carry the topic tag “plasma-biomarkers”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 6 tagged studies.