Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35885064›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2022

Biomarkers of Neurodegenerative Diseases: Biology, Taxonomy, Clinical Relevance, and Current Research Status.

Dorota Koníčková, Kateřina Menšíková, Lucie Tučková, Eva Hényková, Miroslav Strnad, David Friedecký, David Stejskal, Radoslav Matěj, Petr Kaňovský

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Primary open-angle glaucoma: a perspective from plasma metabolomics.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dorota KoníčkováDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4446-0060
Kateřina MenšíkováDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4834-3160
Lucie TučkováDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Eva HénykováDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-4033-7786
Miroslav StrnadDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
David FriedeckýLaboratory of Inherited Metabolic Disorders, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-3448-9073
David StejskalDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Radoslav MatějDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Thomayer University Hospital, 14059 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-6152-6343
Petr KaňovskýDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital Olomouc, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-9009-3241
University Hospital Olomouc · CZCharles University · CZUniversity Hospital Ostrava · CZ

Funding

European Regional Development Fund - Project ENOCH CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The understanding of neurodegenerative diseases, traditionally considered to be well-defined entities with distinguishable clinical phenotypes, has undergone a major shift over the last 20 years. The diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases primarily requires functional brain imaging techniques or invasive tests such as lumbar puncture to assess cerebrospinal fluid. A new biological approach and research efforts, especially in vivo, have focused on biomarkers indicating underlying proteinopathy in cerebrospinal fluid and blood serum. However, due to the complexity and heterogeneity of neurodegenerative processes within the central nervous system and the large number of overlapping clinical diagnoses, identifying individual proteinopathies is relatively difficult and often not entirely accurate. For this reason, there is an urgent need to develop laboratory methods for identifying specific biomarkers, understand the molecular basis of neurodegenerative disorders and classify the quantifiable and readily available tools that can accelerate efforts to translate the knowledge into disease-modifying therapies that can improve and simplify the areas of differential diagnosis, as well as monitor the disease course with the aim of estimating the prognosis or evaluating the effects of treatment. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge about clinically relevant biomarkers in different neurodegenerative diseases.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseasebiomarkersblood-based biomarkerscerebrospinal fluidneurodegenerationneurodegenerative diseasesParkinson’s disease

Identifiers

PMID35885064
PMCPMC9313182
OpenAlexW4286111466

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.