Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36475976›Full record

ReviewJournal of primary care & community health

Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers in Clinical Practice: A Blood-Based Diagnostic Revolution.

Madeline M Paczynski, Gregory S Day

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Paving the way for Alzheimer's disease blood-based biomarkers in primary care.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  3. Counseling and disclosure practices in predictive Alzheimer's disease diagnostics: A scoping review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  4. Considerations for widespread implementation of blood-based biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

2 authors.

Madeline M PaczynskiSaint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Gregory S DayMayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5133-5538

Funding

Rapidly Progressive Dementia: Moving Beyond CJDK23AG064029 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DAY, GREGORY SCOTT · 2019 to 2023
$811k
NIA NIH HHS K23 AG064029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An estimated 6.1 million Americans live with cognitive impairment-a number that is expected to triple by 2050. Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common cause of impairment. The development of blood-based biomarkers capable of detecting pathological changes of AD in living patients has the potential to revolutionize the diagnostic approach to cognitive impairment by enabling screening for AD using accessible, non-invasive measures of amyloid and tau neuropathology, with accuracy that increasingly approaches that seen with "gold standard" positron emission tomography and cerebrospinal fluid measures. Demand for biomarker testing is expected to intensify with the emergence of effective treatments for AD and related dementias. Clinicians in all fields must prepare to meet this demand. Primary care practitioners are well positioned to support dementia diagnosis and management, including the application and interpretation of biomarkers. This article reviews the current uses of AD biomarkers and the potential applications of emerging blood-based AD biomarkers in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseHumansAlzheimer diseaseamyloidblood biomarkersdementiamild cognitive impairmentscreeningtau

Identifiers

PMID36475976
PMCPMC9742698

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.