Home › Research › Biomarkers
Prevalence and Clinical Implications of a β-Amyloid-Negative, Tau-Positive Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Profile in Alzheimer Disease
Erickson P, Simrén J, Brum WS, Ennis GE, Kollmorgen G, Suridjan I, Langhough R, Jonaitis EM et al.. JAMA neurology, 2023-07-31
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Results A total of 7679 individuals (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [8.4] years; 4101 male [53%]) were included in the UGOT cohort, 970 individuals (mean [SD] age, 73 [7.0] years; 526 male [54%]) were included in the ADNI cohort, and 519 individuals (mean [SD] age, 60 [7.3] years; 346 female [67%]) were included in the WISC cohort. Longitudinally, no significant differences in rates of worsening were observed between A-T+ and A-T- profiles for cognition or imaging biomarkers. Conclusion and relevance Results suggest that the CSF A-T+ biomarker profile was found in approximately 5% of lumbar punctures and was not associated with a higher rate of cognitive decline or biomarker signs of disease progression compared with biomarker-negative individuals.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Erickson, P., Simrén, J., Brum, W. S., Ennis, G. E., Kollmorgen, G., Suridjan, I., et al. (2023). Prevalence and Clinical Implications of a β-Amyloid-Negative, Tau-Positive Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Profile in Alzheimer Disease. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.2338
Vancouver
Erickson P, Simrén J, Brum WS, Ennis GE, Kollmorgen G, Suridjan I, et al. Prevalence and Clinical Implications of a β-Amyloid-Negative, Tau-Positive Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Profile in Alzheimer Disease. JAMA neurology. 2023. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.2338. PMID: 37523162.
BibTeX
@article{erickson2023-37523162,
author = {Erickson, P. and Simrén, J. and Brum, W. S. and Ennis, G. E. and Kollmorgen, G. and Suridjan, I. and Langhough, R. and Jonaitis, E. M. and others},
title = {{Prevalence and Clinical Implications of a β-Amyloid-Negative, Tau-Positive Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Profile in Alzheimer Disease}},
journal = {JAMA neurology},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.2338},
pmid = {37523162},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.2338}
}
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
- Results A total of 7679 individuals (mean [SD] age, 71.0 [8.4] years; 4101 male [53%]) were included in the UGOT cohort, 970 individuals (mean [SD] age, 73 [7.0] years; 526 male [54%]) were included in the ADNI cohort, and 519 individuals (mean [SD] age, 60 [7.3] years; 346 female [67%]) were included in the WISC cohort.
- Longitudinally, no significant differences in rates of worsening were observed between A-T+ and A-T- profiles for cognition or imaging biomarkers.
- Conclusion and relevance Results suggest that the CSF A-T+ biomarker profile was found in approximately 5% of lumbar punctures and was not associated with a higher rate of cognitive decline or biomarker signs of disease progression compared with biomarker-negative individuals.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants7,679
- Effect size4.1%; 3.7%; 4.6%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 7,679 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 37523162) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 44 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100. |
| Total | 76 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.