Home › Research › Biomarkers
Racial and ethnic differences in plasma biomarker eligibility for a preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial
Molina-Henry DP, Raman R, Liu A, Langford O, Johnson K, Shum LK, Glover CM, Dhadda S et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2024-04-17
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Introduction In trials of amyloid-lowering drugs for Alzheimer's disease (AD), differential eligibility may contribute to under-inclusion of racial and ethnic underrepresented groups. We examined plasma amyloid beta 42/40 and positron emission tomography (PET) amyloid eligibility for the ongoing AHEAD Study preclinical AD program (NCT04468659). Methods Univariate logistic regression models were used to examine group differences in plasma and PET amyloid screening eligibility. Results Of 4905 participants screened at time of analysis, 1724 were plasma eligible to continue in screening: 13.3% Hispanic Black, 24.7% Hispanic White, 20.8% non-Hispanic (NH) Asian, 24.7% NH Black, and 38.9% NH White. Plasma eligibility differed across groups in models controlling for covariates (odds ratio from 1.9 to 4.0 compared to the NH White reference group, P < 0.001). Among plasma eligible participants, PET eligibility did not differ by group. Discussion These results suggest that prevalence of brain amyloid pathology differed, but that eligibility based on plasma was equally effective across racial and ethnic group members. Highlights Plasma amyloid eligibility is lower in underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. In plasma eligible adults, positron emission tomography eligibility rates are similar across race and ethnicity. Plasma biomarker tests may be similarly effective across racial and ethnic groups.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Molina-Henry, D. P., Raman, R., Liu, A., Langford, O., Johnson, K., Shum, L. K., et al. (2024). Racial and ethnic differences in plasma biomarker eligibility for a preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13803
Vancouver
Molina-Henry DP, Raman R, Liu A, Langford O, Johnson K, Shum LK, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in plasma biomarker eligibility for a preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.13803. PMID: 38629508.
BibTeX
@article{molinahenry2024-38629508,
author = {Molina-Henry, D. P. and Raman, R. and Liu, A. and Langford, O. and Johnson, K. and Shum, L. K. and Glover, C. M. and Dhadda, S. and others},
title = {{Racial and ethnic differences in plasma biomarker eligibility for a preclinical Alzheimer's disease trial}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/alz.13803},
pmid = {38629508},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13803}
}
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 Of 4905 participants screened at time of analysis, 1724 were plasma eligible to continue in screening: 13.3% Hispanic Black, 24.7% Hispanic White, 20.8% non-Hispanic (NH) Asian, 24.7% NH Black, and 38.9% NH White.
- Plasma eligibility differed across groups in models controlling for covariates (odds ratio from 1.9 to 4.0 compared to the NH White reference group, P < 0.001).
- Discussion These results suggest that prevalence of brain amyloid pathology differed, but that eligibility based on plasma was equally effective across racial and ethnic group members.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants4,905
- Effect size13.3%; 24.7%; 20.8%
- Evidence strengthLow
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 (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 3 / 4 | 4,905 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 38629508) |
| 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.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “costs”
265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.