ArticleJAMA network open2026
Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein and Neurofilament Light Reference Intervals in Healthy Individuals.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarkers stewardship in parkinsonism: integrating alpha-synuclein seed amplification assays and neurofilament light chain into diagnostic pathways and patient communication.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- Translating blood-based biomarkers into Alzheimer's disease clinical practice: screening, diagnosis, and longitudinal monitoring.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Concentrations of plasma neurofilament light (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) should be easily interpretable in the context of a patient's profile. Objectives: To develop reference intervals (RI) for NfL and GFAP, accounting for common physiological modifiers of biomarkers and to compare these RIs with concentrations from participants with neurological conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included participants with no cognitive impairment (self-reported, assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥27, or determined by a physician) to generate and validate the RIs as well as individuals, recruited from tertiary clinics, with subjective cognitive decline or mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease (AD), AD dementia, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), dementia with Lewy bodies, vascular dementia (VaD), or multiple sclerosis, for the comparison group. Exposures: Age, biological sex (self-reported), body mass index (BMI), and kidney function (measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]). Main Outcomes and Measures: Plasma NfL and GFAP RIs, quantified on the Simoa HD-X, defined over age and adjusted for sex, BMI, and/or eGFR. Results: In 7989 cognitively unimpaired participants (median [range] age, 54 [30-90] years; 4877 [61.3%] female; mean [SD] BMI, 25.9 [4.2]; mean [SD] eGFR, 80.7 [14.7] mL/min/1.73 m2), older age, lower BMI, and reduced kidney function were associated with increased NfL and GFAP concentrations; female sex was associated with increased GFAP concentrations. Median NfL and GFAP concentrations were 6.58 (6.58-6.58) pg/mL and 23.4 (23.4-23.4) pg/mL higher, respectively, in participants with severe compared with no kidney damage (ie, 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs 90 mL/min/1.73 m2). Median NfL and GFAP concentrations were 1.72 (1.72-1.72) pg/mL and 12.6 (12.6-12.6) pg/mL lower, respectively, in participants with obesity compared with those with normal weight (ie, BMI of 30 vs 20). Median GFAP concentrations were 6.17 (6.17-6.17) pg/mL higher in female compared with male participants. NfL concentrations were most elevated in participants with FTD (165 of 179 participants [92.2%] had concentrations greater than the median) and VaD (55 of 60 participants [91.7%] had concentrations greater than the median). GFAP concentrations were most elevated in participants with AD dementia (396 of 479 participants [82.7%] had concentrations greater than the median). A user-friendly interface was developed to visualize the biomarker RIs in the context of an individual's age, BMI, eGFR, and sex. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 7958 individuals, RIs to identify normal or abnormal biomarker concentrations in the context of a cognitively unimpaired individuals were established to aid the use of plasma NfL and GFAP measures in clinical practice for neurological diseases.
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.