ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Evaluation of plasma neurofilament and glial fibrillary acidic protein to predict or detect amyloid related imaging abnormalities.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAmyloid-targeting therapies (ATT) require frequent magnetic resonance imaging monitoring to detect vasogenic edema and hemorrhage, i.e., amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). Neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are potential blood-based biomarkers (BBM) of ARIA.
methodsPlasma NfL and GFAP were longitudinally collected in an ATT clinic and natural log transformed. Baseline, pre-ARIA, and trajectories were compared between patients with (
resultsBaseline NfL and GFAP did not differ between patients with or without ARIA (ln[NfL] ECLIA 1.24 ± 0.38 pg/mL vs 1.25 ± 0.40 pg/mL, DISCUSSION: Biobanking in treatment clinics can evaluate clinical utility of BBMs as monitoring tools. These findings do not support a strong association between NfL or GFAP and ARIA in the ATT clinic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.