Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma Neurofilament Light Chain in Primary Progressive Aphasia and Related Disorders: Clinical Significance and Metabolic Correlates
Jordi A Matías-Guiu, Ulises Gómez-Pinedo, Lucía Forero, Vanesa Pytel, Fátima Cano, Teresa Moreno-Ramos, María Nieves Cabrera-Martín, Jorge Matías-Guiu et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2019
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
NFL discriminated patients from controls with an area under the curve of 0.914 (95% CI, 0.843-0.984; p < 0.001) (cut-off: 76.46 pg/mL; 94% sensitivity, 76.9% specificity). There were no significant differences between clinical syndromes (PPA subtypes), the main clinical forms of dementia (frontotemporal dementia and AD), or the expected pathological groups (frontotemporal lobar degeneration-tau [FTLD-tau], FTLD-TDP43, and AD). NFL levels showed weak to moderate correlations with age and functional scale score. We found no significant correlation with the extent of hypometabolism observed on FDG-PET images. Plasma NFL is a non-specific marker of neurodegeneration, and may be helpful in the diagnosis of PPA. However, NFL does not permit differential diagnosis between PPA subtypes and is not correlated with the extent of neurodegeneration.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Matías-Guiu, J. A., Gómez-Pinedo, U., Forero, L., Pytel, V., Cano, F., Moreno-Ramos, T., et al. (2019). Plasma Neurofilament Light Chain in Primary Progressive Aphasia and Related Disorders: Clinical Significance and Metabolic Correlates. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190838
Vancouver
Matías-Guiu JA, Gómez-Pinedo U, Forero L, Pytel V, Cano F, Moreno-Ramos T, et al. Plasma Neurofilament Light Chain in Primary Progressive Aphasia and Related Disorders: Clinical Significance and Metabolic Correlates. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2019. doi:10.3233/jad-190838. PMID: 31640103.
BibTeX
@article{matiasguiu2019-31640103,
author = {Matías-Guiu, Jordi A and Gómez-Pinedo, Ulises and Forero, Lucía and Pytel, Vanesa and Cano, Fátima and Moreno-Ramos, Teresa and Cabrera-Martín, María Nieves and Matías-Guiu, Jorge and others},
title = {{Plasma Neurofilament Light Chain in Primary Progressive Aphasia and Related Disorders: Clinical Significance and Metabolic Correlates}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.3233/jad-190838},
pmid = {31640103},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190838}
}
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
- NFL discriminated patients from controls with an area under the curve of 0.914 (95% CI, 0.843-0.984; p < 0.001) (cut-off: 76.46 pg/mL; 94% sensitivity, 76.9% specificity).
- There were no significant differences between clinical syndromes (PPA subtypes), the main clinical forms of dementia (frontotemporal dementia and AD), or the expected pathological groups (frontotemporal lobar degeneration-tau [FTLD-tau], FTLD-TDP43, and AD).
- NFL levels showed weak to moderate correlations with age and functional scale score.
- We found no significant correlation with the extent of hypometabolism observed on FDG-PET images.
- Plasma NFL is a non-specific marker of neurodegeneration, and may be helpful in the diagnosis of PPA.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants80
- Effect size76.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 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 | 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 80 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 31640103) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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 Biomarkers
Also in Biomarkers
150 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.