3.8 Review

Consideration of Sex Differences in the Measurement and Interpretation of Alzheimer Disease-Related Biofluid-Based Biomarkers

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED LABORATORY MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 158-169

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1373/jalm.2019.030023

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [U54 AG044170, RF1 AG055151, R01 AG049704, U01 AG006786] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The development of cerebrospinal fluid and blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD) and related disorders is rapidly progressing. Such biomarkers may be used clinically to screen the population, to enhance diagnosis, or to help determine prognosis. Although the use of precision medicine methods has contributed to enhanced understanding of the AD pathophysiological changes and development of assays, one aspect not commonly considered is sex differences. Content: There are several ways in which sex can affect the concentration or interpretation of biofluid biomarkers. For some markers, concentrations will vary by sex. For others, the concentrations might not vary by sex, but the impact or interpretation may vary by sex depending on the context of use (e.g., diagnostic vs prognostic). Finally, for others, there will be no sex differences in concentrations or their interpretation. This review will first provide a basis for sex differences, including differences in brain structure and function, and the means by which these differences could contribute to sex differences in biomarker concentrations. Next, the current state of sex differences in AD-related biofluid markers (i. e., amyloid-beta, phosphorylated t, total t, neurofilament light chain, and neurogranin) will be reviewed. Lastly, factors that can lead to the misinterpretation of observed sex differences in biomarkers (either providing evidence for or against) will be considered. Summary: This review is intended to provide an impetus to consider sex differences in the measurement and interpretation of AD-related biofluid-based biomarkers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据