Home › Research › Biomarkers
Tau plasma levels in subjective cognitive decline: Results from the DELCODE study
Müller S, Preische O, Göpfert JC, Yañez VAC, Joos TO, Boecker H, Düzel E, Falkai P et al.. Scientific reports, 2017-08-25
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Plain-language summary
Previous studies have demonstrated increased tau plasma levels in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD. Much less is known whether increased tau plasma levels can already be detected in the pre-MCI stage of subjective cognitive decline (SCD). In the present study we measured tau plasma levels in 111 SCD patients and 134 age- and gender-matched cognitively healthy controls participating in the DZNE (German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases) longitudinal study on cognition and dementia (DELCODE). Tau plasma levels were measured using ultra-sensitive, single-molecule array (Simoa) technology. We found no significant different tau plasma levels in SCD (3.4 pg/ml) compared with healthy controls (3.6 pg/ml) after controlling for age, gender, and education (p = 0.137). In addition, tau plasma levels did not correlate with Aβ42 (r = 0.073; p = 0.634), tau (r = -0.179; p = 0.240), and p-tau181 (r = -0.208; p = 0.171) cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels in a subgroup of 45 SCD patients with available CSF. In conclusion, plasma tau is not increased in SCD patients. In addition, the lack of correlation between tau in plasma and CSF in the examined cohort suggests that tau levels are affected by different factors in both biofluids.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Müller, S., Preische, O., Göpfert, J. C., Yañez, V. A. C., Joos, T. O., Boecker, H., et al. (2017). Tau plasma levels in subjective cognitive decline: Results from the DELCODE study. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08779-0
Vancouver
Müller S, Preische O, Göpfert JC, Yañez VAC, Joos TO, Boecker H, et al. Tau plasma levels in subjective cognitive decline: Results from the DELCODE study. Scientific reports. 2017. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08779-0. PMID: 28842559.
BibTeX
@article{muller2017-28842559,
author = {Müller, S. and Preische, O. and Göpfert, J. C. and Yañez, V. A. C. and Joos, T. O. and Boecker, H. and Düzel, E. and Falkai, P. and others},
title = {{Tau plasma levels in subjective cognitive decline: Results from the DELCODE study}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-017-08779-0},
pmid = {28842559},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08779-0}
}
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
- Previous studies have demonstrated increased tau plasma levels in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD.
- We found no significant different tau plasma levels in SCD (3.4 pg/ml) compared with healthy controls (3.6 pg/ml) after controlling for age, gender, and education (p = 0.137).
- In conclusion, plasma tau is not increased in SCD patients.
- In addition, the lack of correlation between tau in plasma and CSF in the examined cohort suggests that tau levels are affected by different factors in both biofluids.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scientific reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — 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) |
| 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 28842559) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 “subjective-cognitive-decline”
5 studies in the library carry the topic tag “subjective-cognitive-decline”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 5 tagged studies.