ArticleJournal of neurology2025
Evaluating finger-prick blood collection for remote quantification of neurofilament light in neurological diseases.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fluid and Imaging Biomarkers in Huntington's Disease.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Promising blood-based biomarkers of neuropathology have emerged with potential for therapeutic development and disease monitoring. However, these tools will require specialist tertiary services for integration into clinical management. Remote sampling for biomarker assessment could reduce burden of in-person clinical visits for such tests as well as increasing the sampling frequency and patient geographical outreach. Here, we evaluated a finger-prick blood collection approach for remote quantification of neurofilament light (NfL), a candidate blood-based biomarker evident in various neurological disorders, and other exploratory markers of neuronal injury and neuroinflammation (GFAP, tau). Matched samples from venepuncture and finger-prick were collected and processed into plasma and/or serum to directly compare analyte levels from a multi-disease discovery cohort (n = 54 healthy controls; n = 57 Huntington's disease (HD); n = 34 multiple sclerosis; n = 7 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; n = 11 Parkinson's disease), and a HD confirmatory cohort (n = 57 healthy controls; n = 64 HD). Two delayed processing conditions were compared, three- and seven-day delay, simulating ambient shipment. Capillary NfL and GFAP concentrations were equivalent to those in venous serum and plasma in the multi-disease discovery cohort and HD confirmatory cohort. Only NfL remained stable after a seven-day processing delay in both venous and capillary serum samples. Using NfL concentrations from capillary blood, we replicated previously published disease group differences measured in venous blood. This data supports our finger-prick approach for remote collection and quantification of NfL. With the widespread applications for NfL across the spectrum of neurological disorders, this has the potential to transform disease monitoring, prognosis, and therapeutic development within clinical practice and research.
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.