This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

52/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

The validity of dementia diagnostic criteria depends on their ability to distinguish dementia symptoms from pre-existing cognitive impairments. The study aimed to assess inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of DSM-5 criteria for neurocognitive disorder in Down syndrome. The utility of mild neurocognitive disorder as a distinct diagnostic category, and the association between clinical symptoms and neurodegenerative changes represented by the plasma biomarker neurofilament light were also examined. 165 adults with Down syndrome were included. Two clinicians independently applied clinical judgement, DSM-IV, ICD-10 and DSM-5 criteria for dementia (or neurocognitive disorder) to each case. Inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity were analysed using the kappa statistic. Plasma neurofilament light concentrations were measured for 55 participants as a marker of neurodegeneration and between group comparisons calculated. All diagnostic criteria showed good inter-rater reliability apart from mild neurocognitive disorder which was moderate (k = 0.494). DSM- 5 criteria had substantial concurrence with clinical judgement (k = 0.855). When compared to the no neurocognitive disorder group, average neurofilament light concentrations were higher in both the mild and major neurocognitive disorder groups. DSM-5 neurocognitive disorder criteria can be used reliably in a Down syndrome population and has higher concurrence with clinical judgement than the older DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria. Whilst the inter-rater reliability of the mild neurocognitive disorder criteria was modest, it does appear to identify people in an early stage of dementia with underlying neurodegenerative changes, represented by higher average NfL levels.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Pape, S. E., Al Janabi, T., Ashton, N. J., Hye, A., Sheehan, R., Gallagher, P., et al. (2021). The reliability and validity of DSM 5 diagnostic criteria for neurocognitive disorder and relationship with plasma neurofilament light in a down syndrome population. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92887-5

Vancouver

Pape SE, Al Janabi T, Ashton NJ, Hye A, Sheehan R, Gallagher P, et al. The reliability and validity of DSM 5 diagnostic criteria for neurocognitive disorder and relationship with plasma neurofilament light in a down syndrome population. Scientific reports. 2021. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-92887-5. PMID: 34188117.

BibTeX

@article{pape2021-34188117,
  author  = {Pape, S. E. and Al Janabi, T. and Ashton, N. J. and Hye, A. and Sheehan, R. and Gallagher, P. and Knight, B. and others},
  title   = {{The reliability and validity of DSM 5 diagnostic criteria for neurocognitive disorder and relationship with plasma neurofilament light in a down syndrome population}},
  journal = {Scientific reports},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1038/s41598-021-92887-5},
  pmid    = {34188117},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92887-5}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record lists 165 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

When compared to the no neurocognitive disorder group, average neurofilament light concentrations were higher in both the mild and major neurocognitive disorder groups.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Participants165
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 52/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 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	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	2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	165 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 34188117)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	30 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total	52 / 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.

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 “diagnostic-criteria”

2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diagnostic-criteria”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →