Home › Research › Biomarkers
Quantification of neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein in finger-prick blood
Magdalena A Kolanko, Hanna Huber, Michael C B David, Laia Montoliu-Gaya, Joel Simrén, Kaj Blennow, Henrik Zetterberg, Ramin Nilforooshan et al.. Brain communications, 2024-04-29
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Plain-language summary
An accurate diagnosis of neurodegenerative disease and traumatic brain injury is important for prognostication and treatment. Neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are leading biomarkers for neurodegeneration and glial activation that are detectable in blood. Yet, current recommendations require rapid centrifugation and ultra-low temperature storage post-venepuncture. Here, we investigated if these markers can be accurately measured in finger-prick blood using dried plasma spot cards. Fifty patients (46 with dementia; 4 with traumatic brain injury) and 19 healthy volunteers underwent finger-prick and venous sampling using dried plasma spot cards and aligned plasma sampling. Neurofilament light and GFAP were quantified using a Single molecule array assay and correlations between plasma and dried plasma spot cards assessed. Biomarker concentrations in plasma and finger-prick dried plasma spot samples were significantly positively correlated (neurofilament light ρ = 0.57; GFAP ρ = 0.58, P < 0.001). Finger-prick neurofilament light and GFAP were significantly elevated after acute traumatic brain injury with non-significant group-level increases in dementia (91% having Alzheimer's disease dementia). In conclusion, we present preliminary evidence that quantifying GFAP and neurofilament light using finger-prick blood collection is viable, with samples stored at room temperature using dried plasma spot cards. This has potential to expand and promote equitable testing access, including in settings where trained personnel are unavailable to perform venepuncture.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kolanko, M. A., Huber, H., David, M. C. B., Montoliu-Gaya, L., Simrén, J., Blennow, K., et al. (2024). Quantification of neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein in finger-prick blood. Brain communications. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcae151
Vancouver
Kolanko MA, Huber H, David MCB, Montoliu-Gaya L, Simrén J, Blennow K, et al. Quantification of neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein in finger-prick blood. Brain communications. 2024. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcae151. PMID: 38903933.
BibTeX
@article{kolanko2024-38903933,
author = {Kolanko, Magdalena A and Huber, Hanna and David, Michael C B and Montoliu-Gaya, Laia and Simrén, Joel and Blennow, Kaj and Zetterberg, Henrik and Nilforooshan, Ramin and others},
title = {{Quantification of neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein in finger-prick blood}},
journal = {Brain communications},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1093/braincomms/fcae151},
pmid = {38903933},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcae151}
}
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
- Biomarker concentrations in plasma and finger-prick dried plasma spot samples were significantly positively correlated (neurofilament light ρ = 0.57; GFAP ρ = 0.58, P < 0.001).
- Finger-prick neurofilament light and GFAP were significantly elevated after acute traumatic brain injury with non-significant group-level increases in dementia (91% having Alzheimer's disease dementia).
- In conclusion, we present preliminary evidence that quantifying GFAP and neurofilament light using finger-prick blood collection is viable, with samples stored at room temperature using dried plasma spot cards.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain communications) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 38903933) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 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.
Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years
Also tagged “p-tau217”
692 studies in the library carry the topic tag “p-tau217”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 692 tagged studies.