Home › Research › Biomarkers
The Cerebrospinal Fluid Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 Ratio Improves Concordance with Amyloid-PET for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease in a Clinical Setting
Niemantsverdriet E, Ottoy J, Somers C, De Roeck E, Struyfs H, Soetewey F, Verhaeghe J, Van den Bossche T et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2017-01-01
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Background Evidence suggests that the concordance between amyloid-PET and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β (Aβ) increases when the CSF Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 ratio is used as compared to CSF Aβ1-42 levels alone. Objective In order to test this hypothesis, we set up a prospective longitudinal study comparing the concordance between different amyloid biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a clinical setting. Methods Seventy-eight subjects (AD dementia (n = 17), mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 48), and cognitively healthy controls (n = 13)) underwent a [18F]Florbetapir ([18F]AV45) PET scan, [18F]FDG PET scan, MRI scan, and an extensive neuropsychological examination. In a large subset (n = 67), a lumbar puncture was performed and AD biomarkers were analyzed (Aβ1-42, Aβ1-40, T-tau, P-tau181). Results We detected an increased concordance in the visual and quantitative (standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) and total volume of distribution (VT)) [18F]AV45 PET measures when the CSF Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 was applied compared to Aβ1-42 alone. CSF biomarkers were stronger associated to [18F]AV45 PET for SUVR values when considering the total brain white matter as reference region instead of cerebellar grey matterConclusions:The concordance between CSF Aβ and [18F]AV45 PET increases when the CSF Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 ratio is applied. This finding is of most importance for the biomarker-based diagnosis of AD as well as for selection of subjects for clinical trials with potential disease-modifying therapies for AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Niemantsverdriet, E., Ottoy, J., Somers, C., De Roeck, E., Struyfs, H., Soetewey, F., et al. (2017). The Cerebrospinal Fluid Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 Ratio Improves Concordance with Amyloid-PET for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease in a Clinical Setting. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170327
Vancouver
Niemantsverdriet E, Ottoy J, Somers C, De Roeck E, Struyfs H, Soetewey F, et al. The Cerebrospinal Fluid Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 Ratio Improves Concordance with Amyloid-PET for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease in a Clinical Setting. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2017. doi:10.3233/jad-170327. PMID: 28869470.
BibTeX
@article{niemantsverdriet2017-28869470,
author = {Niemantsverdriet, E. and Ottoy, J. and Somers, C. and De Roeck, E. and Struyfs, H. and Soetewey, F. and Verhaeghe, J. and Van den Bossche, T. and others},
title = {{The Cerebrospinal Fluid Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 Ratio Improves Concordance with Amyloid-PET for Diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease in a Clinical Setting}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.3233/jad-170327},
pmid = {28869470},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170327}
}
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
- Background Evidence suggests that the concordance between amyloid-PET and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β (Aβ) increases when the CSF Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 ratio is used as compared to CSF Aβ1-42 levels alone.
- Results We detected an increased concordance in the visual and quantitative (standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) and total volume of distribution (VT)) [18F]AV45 PET measures when the CSF Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 was applied compared to Aβ1-42 alone.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants17
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported 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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 1 / 4 | 17 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 28869470) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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
Also tagged “18f”
318 studies in the library carry the topic tag “18f”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 318 tagged studies.