Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma Neurofilament Light Chain Predicts Cognitive Progression in Prodromal and Clinical Dementia with Lewy Bodies
Andrea Pilotto, Alberto Imarisio, Claudia Carrarini, Mirella Russo, Stefano Masciocchi, Stefano Gipponi, Elisabetta Cottini, Dag Aarsland et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2021
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a marker of neuronal damage in different neurological disorders and might predict disease progression in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). The study enrolled 45 controls and 44 DLB patients (including 17 prodromal cases) who underwent an extensive assessment at baseline and at 2 years follow-up. At baseline, plasma NfL levels were higher in both probable DLB and prodromal cases compared to controls. Plasma NfL emerged as the best predictor of cognitive decline compared to age, sex, and baseline severity variables. The study supports the role of plasma NfL as a useful prognostic biomarker from the early stages of DLB.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Pilotto, A., Imarisio, A., Carrarini, C., Russo, M., Masciocchi, S., Gipponi, S., et al. (2021). Plasma Neurofilament Light Chain Predicts Cognitive Progression in Prodromal and Clinical Dementia with Lewy Bodies. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-210342
Vancouver
Pilotto A, Imarisio A, Carrarini C, Russo M, Masciocchi S, Gipponi S, et al. Plasma Neurofilament Light Chain Predicts Cognitive Progression in Prodromal and Clinical Dementia with Lewy Bodies. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2021. doi:10.3233/jad-210342. PMID: 34151807.
BibTeX
@article{pilotto2021-34151807,
author = {Pilotto, Andrea and Imarisio, Alberto and Carrarini, Claudia and Russo, Mirella and Masciocchi, Stefano and Gipponi, Stefano and Cottini, Elisabetta and Aarsland, Dag and others},
title = {{Plasma Neurofilament Light Chain Predicts Cognitive Progression in Prodromal and Clinical Dementia with Lewy Bodies}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3233/jad-210342},
pmid = {34151807},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-210342}
}
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
- At baseline, plasma NfL levels were higher in both probable DLB and prodromal cases compared to controls.
- Plasma NfL emerged as the best predictor of cognitive decline compared to age, sex, and baseline severity variables.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants45
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 48 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 45 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 34151807) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 27 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 in Biomarkers
204 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.