Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma neurofilament light outperforms glial fibrillary acidic protein in differentiating behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorders
Dhamidhu Eratne, Matthew J Y Kang, Courtney Lewis, Christa Dang, Charles Malpas, Suyi Ooi, Amy Brodtmann, David Darby et al.. Journal of the neurological sciences, 2024-11-08
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Plasma GFAP levels were significantly (all p < 0.001) elevated in bvFTD (n = 22, mean (M) = 273 pg/mL) compared to BPAD (n = 121, M = 96 pg/mL), MDD (n = 42, M = 105 pg/mL), TRS (n = 82, M = 67.9 pg/mL), and HC (n = 120, M = 76.8 pg/mL). GFAP distinguished bvFTD from all PPD with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85, 95 % confidence interval [0.76, 0.95]. The optimal cut-off of 105 pg/mL was associated with 73 % specificity and 86 % sensitivity. NfL had AUC 0.95 [0.91, 0.99], 13.3 pg/mL cut-off, 88 % specificity, 86 % sensitivity, and was superior to GFAP (p = 0.02863) and combination of GFAP and NfL (p = 0.04726). This study found elevated GFAP levels in bvFTD compared to a large cohort of PPD, but NfL levels exhibited better performance in this distinction. These findings extend the literature on GFAP in bvFTD and build evidence for plasma NfL as a useful biomarker to assist with distinguishing bvFTD from PPD. Utilisation of NfL may improve timely and accurate diagnosis of bvFTD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Eratne, D., Kang, M. J. Y., Lewis, C., Dang, C., Malpas, C., Ooi, S., et al. (2024). Plasma neurofilament light outperforms glial fibrillary acidic protein in differentiating behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorders. Journal of the neurological sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2024.123291
Vancouver
Eratne D, Kang MJY, Lewis C, Dang C, Malpas C, Ooi S, et al. Plasma neurofilament light outperforms glial fibrillary acidic protein in differentiating behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorders. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2024.123291. PMID: 39577322.
BibTeX
@article{eratne2024-39577322,
author = {Eratne, Dhamidhu and Kang, Matthew J Y and Lewis, Courtney and Dang, Christa and Malpas, Charles and Ooi, Suyi and Brodtmann, Amy and Darby, David and others},
title = {{Plasma neurofilament light outperforms glial fibrillary acidic protein in differentiating behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorders}},
journal = {Journal of the neurological sciences},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1016/j.jns.2024.123291},
pmid = {39577322},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2024.123291}
}
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
- Plasma GFAP levels were significantly (all p < 0.001) elevated in bvFTD (n = 22, mean (M) = 273 pg/mL) compared to BPAD (n = 121, M = 96 pg/mL), MDD (n = 42, M = 105 pg/mL), TRS (n = 82, M = 67.9 pg/mL), and HC (n = 120, M = 76.8 pg/mL).
- GFAP distinguished bvFTD from all PPD with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85, 95 % confidence interval [0.76, 0.95].
- The optimal cut-off of 105 pg/mL was associated with 73 % specificity and 86 % sensitivity.
- NfL had AUC 0.95 [0.91, 0.99], 13.3 pg/mL cut-off, 88 % specificity, 86 % sensitivity, and was superior to GFAP (p = 0.02863) and combination of GFAP and NfL (p = 0.04726).
- This study found elevated GFAP levels in bvFTD compared to a large cohort of PPD, but NfL levels exhibited better performance in this distinction.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants22
- Effect sizeAUC 0.95
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the neurological sciences) |
| 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 | 22 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) |
| 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 39577322) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 33 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 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.