↓ Skip to main content

Cerebrospinal fluid in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: clinical utility of an extended panel of biomarkers in a specialist cognitive clinic

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users
patent
10 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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
Cerebrospinal fluid in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: clinical utility of an extended panel of biomarkers in a specialist cognitive clinic
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13195-018-0361-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ross W. Paterson, Catherine F. Slattery, Teresa Poole, Jennifer M. Nicholas, Nadia K. Magdalinou, Jamie Toombs, Miles D. Chapman, Michael P. Lunn, Amanda J. Heslegrave, Martha S Foiani, Philip S. J. Weston, Ashvini Keshavan, Jonathan D. Rohrer, Martin N. Rossor, Jason D. Warren, Catherine J. Mummery, Kaj Blennow, Nick C. Fox, Henrik Zetterberg, Jonathan M. Schott

Abstract

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are increasingly being used to support a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Their clinical utility for differentiating AD from non-AD neurodegenerative dementias, such as dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD), is less well established. We aimed to determine the diagnostic utility of an extended panel of CSF biomarkers to differentiate AD from a range of other neurodegenerative dementias. We used immunoassays to measure conventional CSF markers of amyloid and tau pathology (amyloid beta (Aβ)1-42, total tau (T-tau), and phosphorylated tau (P-tau)) as well as amyloid processing (AβX-38, AβX-40, AβX-42, soluble amyloid precursor protein (sAPP)α, and sAPPβ), large fibre axonal degeneration (neurofilament light chain (NFL)), and neuroinflammation (YKL-40) in 245 patients with a variety of dementias and 30 controls. Patients fulfilled consensus criteria for AD (n = 156), DLB (n = 20), behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD; n = 45), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA; n = 17), and semantic dementia (SD; n = 7); approximately 10% were pathology/genetically confirmed (n = 26). Global tests based on generalised least squares regression were used to determine differences between groups. Non-parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were used to quantify how well each biomarker discriminated AD from each of the other diagnostic groups (or combinations of groups). CSF cut-points for the major biomarkers found to have diagnostic utility were validated using an independent cohort which included causes of AD (n = 104), DLB (n = 5), bvFTD (n = 12), PNFA (n = 3), SD (n = 9), and controls (n = 10). There were significant global differences in Aβ1-42, T-tau, T-tau/Aβ1-42 ratio, P-tau-181, NFL, AβX-42, AβX-42/X-40 ratio, APPα, and APPβ between groups. At a fixed sensitivity of 85%, AβX-42/X-40 could differentiate AD from controls, bvFTD, and SD with specificities of 93%, 85%, and 100%, respectively; for T-tau/Aβ1-42 these specificities were 83%, 70%, and 86%. AβX-42/X-40 had similar or higher specificity than Aβ1-42. No biomarker or ratio could differentiate AD from DLB or PNFA with specificity > 50%. Similar sensitivities and specificities were found in the independent validation cohort for differentiating AD and other dementias and in a pathology/genetically confirmed sub-cohort. CSF AβX-42/X-40 and T-tau/Aβ1-42 ratios have utility in distinguishing AD from controls, bvFTD, and SD. None of the biomarkers tested had good specificity at distinguishing AD from DLB or PNFA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 198 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Master 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 29 15%
Unknown 57 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 15%
Neuroscience 29 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Psychology 9 5%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 72 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 02 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,770,868
of 25,008,338 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#300
of 1,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,098
of 337,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#4
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,008,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 337,784 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.