↓ Skip to main content

Unbiased estimates of cerebrospinal fluid β-amyloid 1–42 cutoffs in a large memory clinic population

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unbiased estimates of cerebrospinal fluid β-amyloid 1–42 cutoffs in a large memory clinic population
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13195-016-0233-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Bertens, Betty M. Tijms, Philip Scheltens, Charlotte E. Teunissen, Pieter Jelle Visser

Abstract

We sought to define a cutoff for β-amyloid 1-42 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), a key marker for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with data-driven Gaussian mixture modeling in a memory clinic population. We performed a combined cross-sectional and prospective cohort study. We selected 2462 subjects with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, AD-type dementia, and dementia other than AD from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort. We defined CSF β-amyloid 1-42 cutoffs by data-driven Gaussian mixture modeling in the total population and in subgroups based on clinical diagnosis, age, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype. We investigated whether abnormal β-amyloid 1-42 as defined by the data-driven cutoff could better predict progression to AD-type dementia than abnormal β-amyloid 1-42 defined by a clinical diagnosis-based cutoff using Cox proportional hazards regression. In the total group of patients, we found a cutoff for abnormal CSF β-amyloid 1-42 of 680 pg/ml (95% CI 660-705 pg/ml). Similar cutoffs were found within diagnostic and APOE genotype subgroups. The cutoff was higher in elderly subjects than in younger subjects. The data-driven cutoff was higher than our clinical diagnosis-based cutoff and had a better predictive accuracy for progression to AD-type dementia in nondemented subjects (HR 7.6 versus 5.2, p < 0.01). Mixture modeling is a robust method to determine cutoffs for CSF β-amyloid 1-42. It might better capture biological changes that are related to AD than cutoffs based on clinical diagnosis.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 19%
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Psychology 11 16%
Neuroscience 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 21 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,385,136
of 9,075,481 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#200
of 412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,966
of 253,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,075,481 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,680 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.