Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35496374›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022

Clinical application of CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: From rationale to ratios.

Femke H Bouwman, Giovanni B Frisoni, Sterling C Johnson, Xiaochun Chen, Sebastiaan Engelborghs, Takeshi Ikeuchi, Claire Paquet, Craig Ritchie, Sasha Bozeat, Frances-Catherine Quevenco and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patient views on blood-based biomarker tests for Alzheimer's disease in primary care.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Retinal vascular dysfunction in the MthfrAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

4 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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 9 countries.

Femke H BouwmanAlzheimer Center Amsterdam Amsterdam Neuroscience Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands.
Giovanni B FrisoniUniversity of Geneva Geneva Switzerland.
Sterling C JohnsonUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, and Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center of the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital Madison Wisconsin USA.
Xiaochun ChenFujian Medical University Fuzhou China.
Sebastiaan EngelborghsCenter for Neurosciences (C4N) Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and Department of Neurology/Brussels Integrated Center for Brain and Memory (Bru-BRAIN) Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, and Department of Biomedical Sciences University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium.
Takeshi IkeuchiNiigata University Niigata Japan.
Claire PaquetUniversité de Paris Cognitive Neurology Center Lariboisière Hospital GHU APHP Nord INSERMU1144 Paris France.
Craig RitchieUniversity of Edinburgh, and Brain Health Scotland Edinburgh UK.
Sasha BozeatRoche Diagnostic Solutions Rotkreuz Switzerland.
Frances-Catherine QuevencoRoche Diagnostic Solutions Rotkreuz Switzerland.
Charlotte TeunissenDepartment of Clinical Chemistry Neurochemistry Laboratory Amsterdam Neuroscience Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4061-0837
Amsterdam Neuroscience · NLRoche (Switzerland) · CHFujian Medical University · CNInserm · FRNiigata University · JPUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarker testing is recommended for the accurate and timely diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using illustrative case narratives we consider how cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker tests may be used in different presentations of cognitive impairment to facilitate timely and differential diagnosis, improving diagnostic accuracy, providing prognostic information, and guiding personalized management in diverse scenarios. Evidence shows that (1) CSF ratios are superior to amyloid beta (Aβ)1-42 alone; (2) concordance of CSF ratios to amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is better than Aβ1-42 alone; and (3) phosphorylated tau (p-tau)/Aβ1-42 ratio is superior to p-tau alone. CSF biomarkers are recommended for the exclusion of AD as the underlying cause of cognitive impairment, diagnosis of AD at an early stage, differential diagnosis of AD in individuals presenting with other neuropsychiatric symptoms, accurate diagnosis of AD in an atypical presentation, and for clinical trial enrichment. Highlights: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker testing may be underused outside specialist centers.CSF biomarkers improve diagnostic accuracy, guiding personalized management of AD.CSF ratios (amyloid beta [Aβ]1-42/Aβ1-40 and phosphorylated tau/Aβ1-42) perform better than single markers.CSF ratios produce fewer false-negative and false-positive results than individual markers.CSF biomarkers should be included in diagnostic work-up of AD and mild cognitive impairment due to AD.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseasecerebrospinal fluid biomarkersdiagnosismild cognitive impairment

Identifiers

PMID35496374
PMCPMC9044123
OpenAlexW4226167915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.