Home › Research › Biomarkers
Predicting Alzheimer disease from a blood-based biomarker profile: A 54-month follow-up
Burnham SC, Rowe CC, Baker D, Bush AI, Doecke JD, Faux NG, Laws SM, Martins RN et al.. Neurology, 2016-08-17
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Objective We assessed a blood-based signature, which previously demonstrated high accuracy at stratifying individuals with high or low neocortical β-amyloid burden (NAB), to determine whether it could also identify individuals at risk of progression to Alzheimer disease (AD) within 54 months. Methods We generated the blood-based signature for 585 healthy controls (HCs) and 74 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study who underwent clinical reclassification (blinded to biomarker findings) at 54-month follow-up. The individuals were split into estimated high and low NAB groups based on a cutoff of 1.5 standardized uptake value ratio. We assessed the predictive accuracy of the high and low NAB groupings based on progression to mild cognitive impairment or AD according to clinical reclassification at 54-month follow-up. Results Twelve percent of HCs with estimated high NAB progressed in comparison to 5% of HCs with estimated low NAB (odds ratio = 2.4). Forty percent of the participants with MCI who had estimated high NAB progressed in comparison to 5% of the participants with MCI who had estimated low NAB (odds ratio = 12.3). These ratios are in line with those reported for Pittsburgh compound B-PET results. Individuals with estimated high NAB had faster rates of memory decline than those with estimated low NAB. Conclusion These findings suggest that a simple blood-based signature not only provides estimates of NAB but also predicts cognitive decline and disease progression, identifying individuals at risk of progressing toward AD at the prodromal and preclinical stages.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Burnham, S. C., Rowe, C. C., Baker, D., Bush, A. I., Doecke, J. D., Faux, N. G., et al. (2016). Predicting Alzheimer disease from a blood-based biomarker profile: A 54-month follow-up. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000003094
Vancouver
Burnham SC, Rowe CC, Baker D, Bush AI, Doecke JD, Faux NG, et al. Predicting Alzheimer disease from a blood-based biomarker profile: A 54-month follow-up. Neurology. 2016. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000003094. PMID: 27534714.
BibTeX
@article{burnham2016-27534714,
author = {Burnham, S. C. and Rowe, C. C. and Baker, D. and Bush, A. I. and Doecke, J. D. and Faux, N. G. and Laws, S. M. and Martins, R. N. and others},
title = {{Predicting Alzheimer disease from a blood-based biomarker profile: A 54-month follow-up}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000003094},
pmid = {27534714},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000003094}
}
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
- Objective We assessed a blood-based signature, which previously demonstrated high accuracy at stratifying individuals with high or low neocortical β-amyloid burden (NAB), to determine whether it could also identify individuals at risk of progression to Alzheimer disease (AD) within 54 months.
- Results Twelve percent of HCs with estimated high NAB progressed in comparison to 5% of HCs with estimated low NAB (odds ratio = 2.4).
- These ratios are in line with those reported for Pittsburgh compound B-PET results.
- Conclusion These findings suggest that a simple blood-based signature not only provides estimates of NAB but also predicts cognitive decline and disease progression, identifying individuals at risk of progressing toward AD at the prodromal and preclinical stages.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants74
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and effect reported 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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (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 | 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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 74 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 | 1 / 2 | Blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| 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 27534714) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 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 tagged “predicting”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “predicting”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.