Home › Research › Biomarkers
Sex differences in the association between repetitive negative thinking and neurofilament light
Yolanda Lau, Amit Bansal, Cassandre Palix, Harriet Demnitz-King, Miranka Wirth, Olga Klimecki, Gael Chetelat, Géraldine Poisnel et al.. Npj mental health research, 2024-11-11
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Emerging evidence suggests that repetitive negative thinking (RNT; i.e., worry and ruminative brooding) is associated with biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease. Given that women have a greater risk of many neurodegenerative diseases, this study investigated whether worry and brooding are associated with general neurodegeneration and whether associations differ by sex. Exploratory analyses examined whether allostatic load, a marker of chronic stress, mediates any observed relationships. Baseline data from 134 cognitively healthy older adults in the Age-Well clinical trial were utilised. Worry and brooding were assessed using questionnaires. Plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL), a biomarker of neurodegeneration, was quantified using a Meso Scale Discovery assay. We found a positive interaction between brooding and sex on NfL, with higher brooding associated with greater NfL levels in women. No associations were observed between worry/ruminative brooding and allostatic load. These results offer preliminary support that RNT is associated with worse brain health, specifically in women.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lau, Y., Bansal, A., Palix, C., Demnitz-King, H., Wirth, M., Klimecki, O., et al. (2024). Sex differences in the association between repetitive negative thinking and neurofilament light. Npj mental health research. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-024-00093-8
Vancouver
Lau Y, Bansal A, Palix C, Demnitz-King H, Wirth M, Klimecki O, et al. Sex differences in the association between repetitive negative thinking and neurofilament light. Npj mental health research. 2024. doi:10.1038/s44184-024-00093-8. PMID: 39528809.
BibTeX
@article{lau2024-39528809,
author = {Lau, Yolanda and Bansal, Amit and Palix, Cassandre and Demnitz-King, Harriet and Wirth, Miranka and Klimecki, Olga and Chetelat, Gael and Poisnel, Géraldine and others},
title = {{Sex differences in the association between repetitive negative thinking and neurofilament light}},
journal = {Npj mental health research},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1038/s44184-024-00093-8},
pmid = {39528809},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-024-00093-8}
}
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
- Emerging evidence suggests that repetitive negative thinking (RNT; i.e., worry and ruminative brooding) is associated with biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease.
- Given that women have a greater risk of many neurodegenerative diseases, this study investigated whether worry and brooding are associated with general neurodegeneration and whether associations differ by sex.
- We found a positive interaction between brooding and sex on NfL, with higher brooding associated with greater NfL levels in women.
- These results offer preliminary support that RNT is associated with worse brain health, specifically in women.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
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 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Npj mental health research) |
| 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) |
| 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 39528809) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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 “late-life-depression”
139 studies in the library carry the topic tag “late-life-depression”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 139 tagged studies.