Advanced

Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative

Ehrenberg, Alexander J. ; Khatun, Ayesha ; Coomans, Emma ; Betts, Matthew J. ; Capraro, Federica ; Thijssen, Elisabeth H. ; Senkevich, Konstantin ; Bharucha, Tehmina ; Jafarpour, Mehrsa and Young, Peter N.E. , et al. (2020) In Alzheimer's Research and Therapy 12.
Abstract

Background: The panel of fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help... (More)

Background: The panel of fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help harmonize disciplines within the neurodegenerative disease field. Purpose of review: Along with separate review articles covering fluid and imaging biomarkers in this issue of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy, we present the result of a discussion from the 2019 Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases course at the University College London. Here, we discuss themes of biomarker use in neurodegenerative disease research, commenting on appropriate use, interpretation, and considerations for implementation across different neurodegenerative diseases. We also draw attention to areas where biomarker use can be combined with other disciplines to understand issues of pathophysiology and etiology underlying dementia. Lastly, we highlight novel modalities that have been proposed in the landscape of neurodegenerative disease research and care.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Alzheimer's disease, Amyloid, Biomarkers, Cerebrospinal fluid, Magnetic resonance imaging, Neurodegenerative diseases, Neurofilament light chain, Plasma biomarkers, Positron emission tomography, Tau
in
Alzheimer's Research and Therapy
volume
12
article number
56
publisher
BioMed Central (BMC)
external identifiers
  • scopus:85085096668
  • pmid:32404143
ISSN
1758-9193
DOI
10.1186/s13195-020-00601-w
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
6ec95ec6-914a-4280-a988-b452d8122c98
date added to LUP
2020-06-16 15:56:47
date last changed
2020-06-17 05:10:18
@article{6ec95ec6-914a-4280-a988-b452d8122c98,
  abstract     = {<p>Background: The panel of fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help harmonize disciplines within the neurodegenerative disease field. Purpose of review: Along with separate review articles covering fluid and imaging biomarkers in this issue of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy, we present the result of a discussion from the 2019 Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases course at the University College London. Here, we discuss themes of biomarker use in neurodegenerative disease research, commenting on appropriate use, interpretation, and considerations for implementation across different neurodegenerative diseases. We also draw attention to areas where biomarker use can be combined with other disciplines to understand issues of pathophysiology and etiology underlying dementia. Lastly, we highlight novel modalities that have been proposed in the landscape of neurodegenerative disease research and care.</p>},
  author       = {Ehrenberg, Alexander J. and Khatun, Ayesha and Coomans, Emma and Betts, Matthew J. and Capraro, Federica and Thijssen, Elisabeth H. and Senkevich, Konstantin and Bharucha, Tehmina and Jafarpour, Mehrsa and Young, Peter N.E. and Jagust, William and Carter, Stephen F. and Lashley, Tammaryn and Grinberg, Lea T. and Pereira, Joana B. and Mattsson-Carlgren, Niklas and Ashton, Nicholas J. and Hanrieder, Jörg and Zetterberg, Henrik and Schöll, Michael and Paterson, Ross W.},
  issn         = {1758-9193},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {05},
  publisher    = {BioMed Central (BMC)},
  series       = {Alzheimer's Research and Therapy},
  title        = {Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00601-w},
  doi          = {10.1186/s13195-020-00601-w},
  volume       = {12},
  year         = {2020},
}