ArticleBiomedicines2022
Discordant Amyloid Status Diagnosis in Alzheimer's Disease.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEarly and accurate Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis has evolved in recent years by the use of specific methods for detecting its histopathological features in concrete cases. Currently, biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and imaging techniques (amyloid PET) are the most used specific methods. However, some results between both methods are discrepant. Therefore, an evaluation of these discrepant cases is required.
objectiveThe aim of this work is to analyze the characteristics of cases showing discrepancies between methods for detecting amyloid pathology. METHODOLOGY: Patients from the Neurology Department of La Fe Hospital (n = 82) were diagnosed using both methods (CSF biomarkers and amyloid-PET). Statistical analyses were performed using logistic regression, and sex and age were included as covariables. Additionally, results of standard neuropsychological evaluations were taken into account in our analyses.
resultsThe comparison between CSF biomarker (Aβ42) and amyloid PET results showed that around 18% of cases were discrepant-mainly CFS-negative and PET-positive cases had CSF levels close to the cut-off point. In addition, a correlation between the episodic memory test and CSF biomarkers levels was observed. However, the same results were not obtained for other neuropsychological domains. In general, CSF- and PET-discrepant cases showed altered episodic memory in around 66% of cases, while 33% showed normal performance.
conclusionsIn common clinical practice at tertiary memory centers, result discrepancies between tests of amyloid status are far more common than expected. However, episodic memory tests remain an important support method for AD diagnosis, especially in cases with discrepant results between amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.