This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

59/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Background Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of the beta-amyloid and microtubule associated protein tau metabolism have proven the capacity to improve classification of subjects developing Alzheimer's disease (AD). The blood plasma proteome was characterized to further elaborate upon the mechanisms involved and identify proteins that may improve classification of older adults developing an AD dementia. Objective Identify and describe plasma protein expressions that best classify subjects with CSF-defined presence of AD pathology and cerebral amyloidosis. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of samples collected from community-dwelling elderly with (n = 72) or without (n = 48) cognitive impairment. CSF Aβ1-42, tau, and phosphorylated tau (P-tau181) were measured using ELISA, and mass spectrometry quantified the plasma proteomes. Presence of AD pathology was defined as CSF P-tau181/Aβ1-42 > 0.0779, and presence of amyloidosis was defined as CSF Aβ1-42 < 724 pg/mL. Results Two hundred and forty-eight plasma proteins were quantified. Plasma proteins did not improve classification of the AD CSF biomarker profile in the whole sample. When the analysis was separately performed in the cognitively impaired individuals, the diagnosis accuracy of AD CSF profile was 88.9% with 19 plasma proteins included. Within the full cohort, there were 16 plasma proteins that improved diagnostic accuracy of cerebral amyloidosis to 92.4%. Conclusion Plasma proteins improved classification accuracy of AD pathology in cognitively-impaired older adults and appeared representative of amyloid pathology. If confirmed, those candidates could serve as valuable blood biomarkers of the preclinical stages of AD or risk of developing AD.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Dayon, L., Wojcik, J., Núñez Galindo, A., Corthésy, J., Cominetti, O., Oikonomidi, A., et al. (2017). Plasma Proteomic Profiles of Cerebrospinal Fluid-Defined Alzheimer's Disease Pathology in Older Adults. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170426

Vancouver

Dayon L, Wojcik J, Núñez Galindo A, Corthésy J, Cominetti O, Oikonomidi A, et al. Plasma Proteomic Profiles of Cerebrospinal Fluid-Defined Alzheimer's Disease Pathology in Older Adults. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2017. doi:10.3233/jad-170426. PMID: 29125490.

BibTeX

@article{dayon2017-29125490,
  author  = {Dayon, L. and Wojcik, J. and Núñez Galindo, A. and Corthésy, J. and Cominetti, O. and Oikonomidi, A. and Henry, H. and Migliavacca, E. and others},
  title   = {{Plasma Proteomic Profiles of Cerebrospinal Fluid-Defined Alzheimer's Disease Pathology in Older Adults}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-170426},
  pmid    = {29125490},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170426}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record lists 72 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “88.9%; 92.4%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Two hundred and forty-eight plasma proteins were quantified.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Participants72
Effect size88.9%; 92.4%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 59/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 58 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 Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
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	2 / 5	2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	72 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 29125490)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	34 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “defined”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “defined”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →