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.

45/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Plain-language summary

Results BBBO was achieved in 5 out of 6 subjects with an average volume of 983±626 mm 3 following FUS at the right frontal lobe both in white and gray matter regions. Cavitation dose significantly correlated with the BBBO volume ( R 2 >0.9, N =4), demonstrating the portable NgFUS system’s capability of predicting opening volumes. From PET scans, subjects showed a lower Aβ load increase in the treated frontal lobe region compared to the contralateral region. Clinical changes in the mini-mental state examination over 6 months were within the expected range of cognitive decline with no additional changes observed as a result of FUS.

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

APA 7th

Bae, S., Liu, K., Pouliopoulos, A. N., Ji, R., Jiménez-Gambín, S., Yousefian, O., et al. (2024). Transcranial blood-brain barrier opening in Alzheimer's disease patients using a portable focused ultrasound system with real-time 2-D cavitation mapping. Theranostics. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.94206

Vancouver

Bae S, Liu K, Pouliopoulos AN, Ji R, Jiménez-Gambín S, Yousefian O, et al. Transcranial blood-brain barrier opening in Alzheimer's disease patients using a portable focused ultrasound system with real-time 2-D cavitation mapping. Theranostics. 2024. doi:10.7150/thno.94206. PMID: 38196636.

BibTeX

@article{bae2024-38196636,
  author  = {Bae, Sua and Liu, Keyu and Pouliopoulos, Antonios N. and Ji, Robin and Jiménez-Gambín, Sergio and Yousefian, Omid and Kline-Schoder, Alina R. and Batts, Alec J. and others},
  title   = {{Transcranial blood-brain barrier opening in Alzheimer's disease patients using a portable focused ultrasound system with real-time 2-D cavitation mapping}},
  journal = {Theranostics},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.7150/thno.94206},
  pmid    = {38196636},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.94206}
}

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 gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
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

Results BBBO was achieved in 5 out of 6 subjects with an average volume of 983±626 mm 3 following FUS at the right frontal lobe both in white and gray matter regions.
Cavitation dose significantly correlated with the BBBO volume ( R 2 >0.9, N =4), demonstrating the portable NgFUS system’s capability of predicting opening volumes.
From PET scans, subjects showed a lower Aβ load increase in the treated frontal lobe region compared to the contralateral region.
Clinical changes in the mini-mental state examination over 6 months were within the expected range of cognitive decline with no additional changes observed as a result of FUS.

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

Study details

Study designclinical trial
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Theranostics)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (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	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 38196636)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	26 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total	45 / 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 “amyloid-angiopathy”

228 studies in the library carry the topic tag “amyloid-angiopathy”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 228 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →