4.5 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of CSF neurofilament light chain protein in the biomarker-guided classification system for Alzheimer's disease

期刊

NEUROCHEMISTRY INTERNATIONAL
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 355-360

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuint.2017.05.010

关键词

Neurofilament light chain protein; Alzheimer's disease pathophysiology; Frontotemporal dementia; Mild cognitive impairment; Biomarkers; Cerebrospinal fluid

资金

  1. AXA Research Fund
  2. Fondation Universite Pierre et Marie Curie
  3. Fondation pour la Recherche sur Alzheimer, Paris, France
  4. program Investissements d'avenir [ANR-10-IAIHU-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilament light chain (NFL) protein in the classification of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cognitively healthy control individuals (HCs) and patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) as comparisons. Particularly, we tested the performance of CSF NFL concentration in differentiating patient groups stratified by fluid biomarker profiles, independently of the severity of cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD dementia individuals), using a biomarker-guided descriptive classification system for AD. CSF NFL concentrations were examined in a multicenter cross-sectional study of 108 participants stratified in AD pathophysiology-negative (both CSF tau and the 42-amino acid-long amyloid-beta (A beta) peptide (A beta(1-42))) (n = 15), tau pathology-positive only (n = 15), A beta pathology-positive only (n = 13), AD pathophysiology-positive (n = 33), FTD (n = 9) patients, and HCs (n = 23), according to the biomarker-based classification system. The performance of CSF NFL in discriminating AD pathophysiology-positive patients from HCs is fair, whereas the ability in differentiating tau-positive patients from HCs is poor. The classificatory performance in distinguishing AD pathophysiology-positive patients from FTD is unsatisfactory. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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