Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma neurofilament light in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia compared to mood and psychotic disorders
Dhamidhu Eratne, Matthew Kang, Charles Malpas, Steve Simpson-Yap, Courtney Lewis, Christa Dang, Jasleen Grewal, Amy Coe et al.. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 2023-07-21
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Large differences were seen between bvFTD (mean NfL 34.9 pg/mL) and all PPDs and controls (all < 11 pg/mL). NfL distinguished bvFTD from PPD with high accuracy, sensitivity (86%), and specificity (88%). GAMLSS models using reference Control Group 2 facilitated precision interpretation of individual levels, while performing equally to or outperforming models using local controls. Slightly higher NfL levels were found in BPAD, compared to controls and TRS. This study adds further evidence on the diagnostic utility of NfL to distinguish bvFTD from PPD of high clinical relevance to a bvFTD differential diagnosis, and includes the largest cohort of BPAD to date. Using large reference cohorts, GAMLSS modelling and the interactive Internet-based application we developed, may have important implications for future research and clinical translation. Studies are underway investigating utility of plasma NfL in diverse neurodegenerative and primary psychiatric conditions in real-world clinical settings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Eratne, D., Kang, M., Malpas, C., Simpson-Yap, S., Lewis, C., Dang, C., et al. (2024). Plasma neurofilament light in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia compared to mood and psychotic disorders. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674231187312
Vancouver
Eratne D, Kang M, Malpas C, Simpson-Yap S, Lewis C, Dang C, et al. Plasma neurofilament light in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia compared to mood and psychotic disorders. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry. 2024. doi:10.1177/00048674231187312. PMID: 37477141.
BibTeX
@article{eratne2024-37477141,
author = {Eratne, Dhamidhu and Kang, Matthew and Malpas, Charles and Simpson-Yap, Steve and Lewis, Courtney and Dang, Christa and Grewal, Jasleen and Coe, Amy and others},
title = {{Plasma neurofilament light in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia compared to mood and psychotic disorders}},
journal = {The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1177/00048674231187312},
pmid = {37477141},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674231187312}
}
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
- Large differences were seen between bvFTD (mean NfL 34.9 pg/mL) and all PPDs and controls (all < 11 pg/mL).
- NfL distinguished bvFTD from PPD with high accuracy, sensitivity (86%), and specificity (88%).
- GAMLSS models using reference Control Group 2 facilitated precision interpretation of individual levels, while performing equally to or outperforming models using local controls.
- Slightly higher NfL levels were found in BPAD, compared to controls and TRS.
- This study adds further evidence on the diagnostic utility of NfL to distinguish bvFTD from PPD of high clinical relevance to a bvFTD differential diagnosis, and includes the largest cohort of BPAD to date.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants42
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 54/100
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 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 54 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Australian and New Zealand journal of 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 42 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 37477141) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 30 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 54 out of 100. |
| Total | 54 / 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
119 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.