Home › Research › Treatments
Plasma Biomarkers for Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy and Implications for Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: A Comprehensive Review
Sin MK, Dage JL, Nho K, Dowling NM, Seyfried NT, Bennett DA, Levey AI, Ahmed A.. Journal of clinical medicine, 2025-02-07
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Anti-amyloid therapies (AATs) are increasingly being recognized as promising treatment options for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIAs), small areas of edema and microbleeds in the brain presenting as abnormal signals in MRIs of the brain for patients with AD, are the most common side effects of AATs. While most ARIAs are asymptomatic, they can be associated with symptoms like nausea, headache, confusion, and gait instability and, less commonly, with more serious complications such as seizures and death. Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) has been found to be a major risk for ARIA development. The identification of sensitive and reliable non-invasive biomarkers for CAA has been an area of AD research over the years, but with the approval of AATs, this area has taken on a new urgency. This comprehensive review highlights several potential biomarkers, such as Aβ40, Aβ40/42, phosphorylated-tau217, neurofilament light chain, glial fibrillary acidic protein, secreted phosphoprotein 1, placental growth factor, triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2, cluster of differentiation 163, proteomics, and microRNA. Identifying and staging CAA even before its consequences can be detected via neuroimaging are critical to allow clinicians to judiciously select appropriate candidates for AATs, stratify monitoring, properly manage therapeutic regimens for those experiencing symptomatic ARIAs, and optimize the treatment to achieve the best outcomes. Future studies can test potential plasma biomarkers in human beings and evaluate predictive values of individual markers for CAA severity.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sin, M. K., Dage, J. L., Nho, K., Dowling, N. M., Seyfried, N. T., Bennett, D. A., et al. (2025). Plasma Biomarkers for Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy and Implications for Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of clinical medicine. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14041070
Vancouver
Sin MK, Dage JL, Nho K, Dowling NM, Seyfried NT, Bennett DA, et al. Plasma Biomarkers for Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy and Implications for Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of clinical medicine. 2025. doi:10.3390/jcm14041070. PMID: 40004604.
BibTeX
@article{sin2025-40004604,
author = {Sin, M. K. and Dage, J. L. and Nho, K. and Dowling, N. M. and Seyfried, N. T. and Bennett, D. A. and Levey, A. I. and Ahmed, A.},
title = {{Plasma Biomarkers for Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy and Implications for Amyloid-Related Imaging Abnormalities: A Comprehensive Review}},
journal = {Journal of clinical medicine},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.3390/jcm14041070},
pmid = {40004604},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14041070}
}
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
- While most ARIAs are asymptomatic, they can be associated with symptoms like nausea, headache, confusion, and gait instability and, less commonly, with more serious complications such as seizures and death.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical medicine) |
| 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 | 2025 — within 3 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 40004604) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 Treatments
Also tagged “comprehensive”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “comprehensive”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.