Home › Research › Biomarkers
Translating blood biomarkers into clinical practice for Alzheimer's disease: Challenges and perspectives
Jun Wang, Ming Chen, Colin L Masters, Yan-Jiang Wang. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2023-05-23
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Early and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical practice is urgent with advances in AD treatment. Blood biomarker assays are preferential diagnostic tools for widespread clinical use with the advantages of being less invasive, cost effective, and easily accessible, and they have shown good performance in research cohorts. However, in community-based populations with maximum heterogeneity, great challenges are still faced in diagnosing AD based on blood biomarkers in terms of accuracy and robustness. Here, we analyze these challenges, including the confounding impact of systemic and biological factors, small changes in blood biomarkers, and difficulty in detecting early changes. Furthermore, we provide perspectives on several potential strategies to overcome these challenges for blood biomarkers to bridge the gap from research to clinical practice.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wang, J., Chen, M., Masters, C. L., & Wang, Y.-J. (2023). Translating blood biomarkers into clinical practice for Alzheimer's disease: Challenges and perspectives. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13116
Vancouver
Wang J, Chen M, Masters CL, Wang Y.-J. Translating blood biomarkers into clinical practice for Alzheimer's disease: Challenges and perspectives. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2023. doi:10.1002/alz.13116. PMID: 37218404.
BibTeX
@article{wang2023-37218404,
author = {Wang, Jun and Chen, Ming and Masters, Colin L and Wang, Yan-Jiang},
title = {{Translating blood biomarkers into clinical practice for Alzheimer's disease: Challenges and perspectives}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1002/alz.13116},
pmid = {37218404},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13116}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Early and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical practice is urgent with advances in AD treatment.
- Blood biomarker assays are preferential diagnostic tools for widespread clinical use with the advantages of being less invasive, cost effective, and easily accessible, and they have shown good performance in research cohorts.
- However, in community-based populations with maximum heterogeneity, great challenges are still faced in diagnosing AD based on blood biomarkers in terms of accuracy and robustness.
- Here, we analyze these challenges, including the confounding impact of systemic and biological factors, small changes in blood biomarkers, and difficulty in detecting early changes.
- Furthermore, we provide perspectives on several potential strategies to overcome these challenges for blood biomarkers to bridge the gap from research to clinical practice.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a leading specialty 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 2023 — within 6 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 37218404) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 25 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “p-tau217”
692 studies in the library carry the topic tag “p-tau217”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 692 tagged studies.