Home › Research › Biomarkers
The CORCOBIA study: Cut-off points of Alzheimer's disease CSF biomarkers in a clinical cohort
Puig-Pijoan A, García-Escobar G, Fernández-Lebrero A, Manero-Borràs RM, Sánchez-Benavides G, Navalpotro-Gómez I, Cascales Lahoz D, Suárez-Calvet M et al.. Neurologia, 2022-08-09
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction The analysis of the core biomarkers of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is recommended in the clinical units where it is available. Because of the absence of universal validated values, the determination of specific cut-off points for each center and its population is recommended. The main objective of the CORCOBIA study was to determine the cut-off points of core AD CSF biomarkers for several centers (Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona and Hospital General de Granollers), which work with the same reference laboratory (Laboratori de Referència de Catalunya). Methods Prospective study including cognitively unimpaired individuals (CU, n = 42), subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI, n = 35) and patients with dementia due to Alzheimer's Disease (AD, n = 48), in whom clinical and neuropsychological assessment, neuroimaging, APOE genotyping and lumbar puncture to analyse amyloid beta peptides (Aβ42, Aβ40), total tau (tTau) and phosphorylated Tau (pTau181) using the Lumipulse G600II (Fujirebio) was performed. The values of sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), predictive values and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated, determining the cut-off point according to the Youden index by comparing the CU and AD groups. Results The resulting cut-offs and their AUC were the following: Aβ42 750 pg/mL (AUC 0.809); Aβ42/Aβ40 0.062 (AUC 0.78); pTau181 69.85 pg/mL (AUC 0.81); tTau 522.0 pg/mL (AUC 0.79); Aβ42/tTau 1.76 (AUC 0.86); Aβ42/pTau181 10.25 (AUC 0.86). Conclusions The determination of cut-off points of core AD CSF biomarkers for the participating centers allows a better diagnostic accuracy. The ratio CSF Aβ42/pTau181 shows the highest AUC and better balance between sensitivity and specificity.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Puig-Pijoan, A., García-Escobar, G., Fernández-Lebrero, A., Manero-Borràs, R. M., Sánchez-Benavides, G., Navalpotro-Gómez, I., et al. (2024). The CORCOBIA study: Cut-off points of Alzheimer's disease CSF biomarkers in a clinical cohort. Neurologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrleng.2022.05.002
Vancouver
Puig-Pijoan A, García-Escobar G, Fernández-Lebrero A, Manero-Borràs RM, Sánchez-Benavides G, Navalpotro-Gómez I, et al. The CORCOBIA study: Cut-off points of Alzheimer's disease CSF biomarkers in a clinical cohort. Neurologia. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.nrleng.2022.05.002. PMID: 35961506.
BibTeX
@article{puigpijoan2024-35961506,
author = {Puig-Pijoan, A. and García-Escobar, G. and Fernández-Lebrero, A. and Manero-Borràs, R. M. and Sánchez-Benavides, G. and Navalpotro-Gómez, I. and Cascales Lahoz, D. and Suárez-Calvet, M. and others},
title = {{The CORCOBIA study: Cut-off points of Alzheimer's disease CSF biomarkers in a clinical cohort}},
journal = {Neurologia},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1016/j.nrleng.2022.05.002},
pmid = {35961506},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrleng.2022.05.002}
}
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 The resulting cut-offs and their AUC were the following: Aβ42 750 pg/mL (AUC 0.809); Aβ42/Aβ40 0.062 (AUC 0.78); pTau181 69.85 pg/mL (AUC 0.81); tTau 522.0 pg/mL (AUC 0.79); Aβ42/tTau 1.76 (AUC 0.86); Aβ42/pTau181 10.25 (AUC 0.86).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants42
- Effect sizeAUC 0.809; AUC 0.78; AUC 0.81
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 54/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 54 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurologia) |
| 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 | 1 / 4 | 42 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35961506) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 33 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 54 out of 100. |
| Total | 54 / 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.