Home › Research › Biomarkers
Systematic evaluation of urinary formic acid as a new potential biomarker for Alzheimer's disease
Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhu J, Guan Y, Xie F, Cai X, Deng J, Wei Y et al.. Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022-11-30
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction The accumulation of endogenous formaldehyde is considered a pathogenic factor in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between urinary formic acid and plasma biomarkers in AD. Materials and methods Five hundred and seventy-four participants were divided into five groups according to their diagnosis: 71 with normal cognitive (NC), 101 with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), 131 with cognitive impairment without mild cognitive impairment (CINM), 158 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 113 with AD. Results With the progression of the disease, urinary formic acid levels showed an overall upward trend. Urinary formic acid was significantly correlated with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, the Chinese version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) scores, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-B) time. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) of urinary formic acid in distinguishing NC from AD was 0.797, which was similar to that of plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL; AUC = 0.768) and better than other plasma biomarkers (Aβ40, Aβ42, Aβ42/Aβ40, T-tau, P-tau181, and P-tau181/T-tau). We also found that using urinary formic acid and formaldehyde levels could improve the accuracy of using plasma biomarkers to determine AD disease stage. Discussion Our study revealed the possibility of urinary formic acid as a potential novel biomarker for the early diagnosis of AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wang, Y., Zhu, J., Guan, Y., Xie, F., Cai, X., Deng, J., et al. (2022). Systematic evaluation of urinary formic acid as a new potential biomarker for Alzheimer's disease. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.1046066
Vancouver
Wang Y, Zhu J, Guan Y, Xie F, Cai X, Deng J, et al. Systematic evaluation of urinary formic acid as a new potential biomarker for Alzheimer's disease. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2022. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2022.1046066. PMID: 36533170.
BibTeX
@article{wang2022-36533170,
author = {Wang, Y. and Zhu, J. and Guan, Y. and Xie, F. and Cai, X. and Deng, J. and Wei, Y. and others},
title = {{Systematic evaluation of urinary formic acid as a new potential biomarker for Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3389/fnagi.2022.1046066},
pmid = {36533170},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.1046066}
}
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 With the progression of the disease, urinary formic acid levels showed an overall upward trend.
- Urinary formic acid was significantly correlated with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, the Chinese version of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) scores, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-B) time.
- Discussion Our study revealed the possibility of urinary formic acid as a potential novel biomarker for the early diagnosis of AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Effect sizeAUC = 0.768
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 48/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 36533170) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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.