Home › Research › Biomarkers
Population-based blood screening for preclinical Alzheimer's disease in a British birth cohort at age 70
Keshavan A, Pannee J, Karikari TK, Rodriguez JL, Ashton NJ, Nicholas JM, Cash DM, Coath W et al.. Brain : a journal of neurology, 2021-03-01
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Mass spectrometry plasma measures performed significantly better than any other measure (amyloid-β1-42/1-40: 0.817; 0.770-0.864 and amyloid-β composite: 0.820; 0.775-0.866). Across a theoretical range of amyloid PET positivity prevalence of 10-50%, mass spectrometry measures of amyloid-β1-42/1-40 would consistently reduce the numbers proceeding to scans, with greater cost savings demonstrated at lower prevalence.
Key findings
- Mass spectrometry plasma measures performed significantly better than any other measure (amyloid-β1-42/1-40: 0.817; 0.770-0.864 and amyloid-β composite: 0.820; 0.775-0.866).
- Across a theoretical range of amyloid PET positivity prevalence of 10-50%, mass spectrometry measures of amyloid-β1-42/1-40 would consistently reduce the numbers proceeding to scans, with greater cost savings demonstrated at lower prevalence.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants502
- Effect size18.6%; 86.6%; 71.9%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 62/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 62 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain : a journal of neurology) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 502 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) |
| 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 33479777) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 36 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 36 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 62 out of 100. |
| Total | 62 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Keshavan, A., Pannee, J., Karikari, T. K., Rodriguez, J. L., Ashton, N. J., Nicholas, J. M., et al. (2021). Population-based blood screening for preclinical Alzheimer's disease in a British birth cohort at age 70. Brain : a journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa403
Vancouver
Keshavan A, Pannee J, Karikari TK, Rodriguez JL, Ashton NJ, Nicholas JM, et al. Population-based blood screening for preclinical Alzheimer's disease in a British birth cohort at age 70. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2021. doi:10.1093/brain/awaa403. PMID: 33479777.
BibTeX
@article{keshavan2021-33479777,
author = {Keshavan, A. and Pannee, J. and Karikari, T. K. and Rodriguez, J. L. and Ashton, N. J. and Nicholas, J. M. and Cash, D. M. and Coath, W. and others},
title = {{Population-based blood screening for preclinical Alzheimer's disease in a British birth cohort at age 70}},
journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1093/brain/awaa403},
pmid = {33479777},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awaa403}
}
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “18f”
319 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 319 tagged studies.