Home › Research › Tau biomarkers
Reciprocal Predictive Relationships between Amyloid and Tau Biomarkers in Alzheimer's Disease Progression: An Empirical Model
Saffire H Krance, Hugo Cogo-Moreira, Jennifer S Rabin, Sandra E Black, Walter Swardfager, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2019-07-26
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
In Alzheimer's disease patients, although amyloid deposition and CSF amyloid changes continued to "cascade", there was no evidence to suggest that amyloid and tau biomarkers predicted each other, although both amyloid deposition and CSF tau progression predicted cognitive decline independently.
Key findings
- In Alzheimer's disease patients, although amyloid deposition and CSF amyloid changes continued to "cascade", there was no evidence to suggest that amyloid and tau biomarkers predicted each other, although both amyloid deposition and CSF tau progression predicted cognitive decline independently.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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) |
| 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 31350262) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Krance, S. H., Cogo-Moreira, H., Rabin, J. S., Black, S. E., Swardfager, W., & Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2019). Reciprocal Predictive Relationships between Amyloid and Tau Biomarkers in Alzheimer's Disease Progression: An Empirical Model. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1056-19.2019
Vancouver
Krance SH, Cogo-Moreira H, Rabin JS, Black SE, Swardfager W, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Reciprocal Predictive Relationships between Amyloid and Tau Biomarkers in Alzheimer's Disease Progression: An Empirical Model. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2019. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1056-19.2019. PMID: 31350262.
BibTeX
@article{krance2019-31350262,
author = {Krance, Saffire H and Cogo-Moreira, Hugo and Rabin, Jennifer S and Black, Sandra E and Swardfager, Walter and {Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative}},
title = {{Reciprocal Predictive Relationships between Amyloid and Tau Biomarkers in Alzheimer's Disease Progression: An Empirical Model}},
journal = {The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1523/jneurosci.1056-19.2019},
pmid = {31350262},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1056-19.2019}
}