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

Background Aberrant amyloid-β (Aβ) deposition in the brain occurs two decades prior to the manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical symptoms and therefore brain Aβ load measured using PET serves as a gold standard biomarker for the early diagnosis of AD. However, the uneconomical nature of PET makes blood markers, that reflect brain Aβ deposition, attractive candidates for investigation as surrogate markers. Objective Investigation of plasma Aβ as a surrogate marker for brain Aβ deposition in cognitively normal elderly individuals. Methods Plasma Aβ40 and Aβ42 concentrations were measured using the ultrasensitive Single Molecule Array (Simoa) assay in 95 cognitively normal elderly individuals, who have all undergone PET to assess brain Aβ deposition. Based on the standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) obtained from PET imaging, using the tracer 18F-Florbetaben, plasma Aβ was compared between 32 participants assessed to have low brain Aβ load (Aβ-, SUVR <1.35) and 63 assessed to have high brain Aβ load (Aβ+, SUVR ≥1.35). Results Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratios were lower in the Aβ+ group compared to the Aβ-group. Plasma Aβ40 and Aβ42 levels were not significantly different between Aβ-and Aβ+ groups, although a trend of higher plasma Aβ40 was observed in the Aβ+ group. Additionally, plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratios along with the known AD risk factors, age and APOEɛ4 status, resulted in Aβ+ participants being distinguished from Aβ-participants based on an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve shown to be 78%. Conclusion Plasma Aβ ratios in this study are a potential biomarker for brain Aβ deposition and therefore, for preclinical AD. However, this method to measure plasma Aβ needs further development to increase the accuracy of this promising AD blood biomarker.

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

APA 7th

Chatterjee, P., Elmi, M., Goozee, K., Shah, T., Sohrabi, H. R., Dias, C. B., et al. (2019). Ultrasensitive Detection of Plasma Amyloid-β as a Biomarker for Cognitively Normal Elderly Individuals at Risk of Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190533

Vancouver

Chatterjee P, Elmi M, Goozee K, Shah T, Sohrabi HR, Dias CB, et al. Ultrasensitive Detection of Plasma Amyloid-β as a Biomarker for Cognitively Normal Elderly Individuals at Risk of Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2019. doi:10.3233/jad-190533. PMID: 31424403.

BibTeX

@article{chatterjee2019-31424403,
  author  = {Chatterjee, P. and Elmi, M. and Goozee, K. and Shah, T. and Sohrabi, H. R. and Dias, C. B. and Pedrini, S. and Shen, K. and others},
  title   = {{Ultrasensitive Detection of Plasma Amyloid-β as a Biomarker for Cognitively Normal Elderly Individuals at Risk of Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.3233/jad-190533},
  pmid    = {31424403},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190533}
}

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: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 32 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

Results Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratios were lower in the Aβ+ group compared to the Aβ-group.
Plasma Aβ40 and Aβ42 levels were not significantly different between Aβ-and Aβ+ groups, although a trend of higher plasma Aβ40 was observed in the Aβ+ group.

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

Study details

Participants32
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

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 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 (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD)
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	2 / 5	2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	32 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 31424403)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
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 “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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →