Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20971518›Full record

ReviewTrends in biotechnology2011

Identifying and validating biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease.

Christian Humpel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in biotechnology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 163 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

163 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease using spectrochemical analysis of blood.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christian HumpelLaboratory of Psychiatry and Experimental Alzheimer's Research, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstr. 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria. christian.humpel@i-med.ac.at

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF L 429
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The identification and validation of biomarkers for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other forms of dementia are increasingly important. To date, ELISA measurement of β-amyloid(1-42), total tau and phospho-tau-181 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is the most advanced and accepted method to diagnose probable AD with high specificity and sensitivity. However, it is a great challenge to search for novel biomarkers in CSF and blood by using modern potent methods, such as microarrays and mass spectrometry, and to optimize the handling of samples (e.g. collection, transport, processing, and storage), as well as the interpretation using bioinformatics. It seems likely that only a combined analysis of several biomarkers will define a patient-specific signature to diagnose AD in the future.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersHumanstau ProteinsAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkerstau Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20971518
PMCPMC3016495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.