Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42412876›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Evaluation of plasma neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acidic protein in myasthenia gravis: A controlled cohort study.

Arta Grosmane-Bataraga, Evita Saluvēra, Marija Roddate, Vladimirs Krutovs, Kaj Blennow, Henrik Zetterberg, Maksims Zolovs, Nataļja Kurjāne, Viktorija Ķēniņa

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Arta Grosmane-BataragaRīga Stradiņš University, Department of Doctoral Studies, Riga, Latvia.
Evita SaluvēraRīga Stradiņš University, Faculty of Medicine, Riga, Latvia.
Marija RoddatePauls Stradiņš Clinical University Hospital, Department of Neurology, Riga, Latvia.
Vladimirs KrutovsPauls Stradiņš Clinical University Hospital, Department of Neurology, Riga, Latvia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3596-9661
Kaj BlennowDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden.
Henrik ZetterbergDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden.
Maksims ZolovsDaugavpils University, Institute of Life Sciences and Technology, Daugavpils, Latvia.
Nataļja KurjāneRīga Stradiņš University, Scientific Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Riga, Latvia.
Viktorija ĶēniņaRīga Stradiņš University, Scientific Laboratory of Molecular Genetics, Riga, Latvia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7468-1908

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo evaluate plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) as candidate biomarkers in myasthenia gravis (MG).

methodsNinety MG patients and 40 healthy controls were recruited. Disease severity was assessed by the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) classification, Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC) score, and Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scale. Plasma NfL and GFAP were quantified using Single Molecule Array (Simoa) assays.

resultsNfL and GFAP plasma concentration did not differ between MG and controls (p > 0.05). Neither biomarker correlated with MG-ADL or MGC, and no differences were observed across MGFA classes (p > 0.05). Biomarker levels were unrelated to myasthenic crisis history or treatment exposure.

conclusionPlasma NfL and GFAP, although informative in other neuroimmunological and neurodegenerative conditions, do not distinguish MG from healthy controls and show no association with disease severity. This study adds to the emerging literature on NfL in MG and represents one of the larger controlled analyses incorporating both NfL and GFAP biomarkers in this disease. The findings argue against adopting NfL or GFAP for MG monitoring and highlight the need for MG-specific biomarker strategies.

Indexed as

Glial Fibrillary Acidic ProteinMyasthenia GravisNeurofilament ProteinsAdultAgedBiomarkersCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSeverity of Illness IndexBiomarkersGFAP protein, humanGlial Fibrillary Acidic Proteinneurofilament protein LNeurofilament Proteins

Identifiers

PMID42412876
PMCPMC13340798

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.