Cited by 183Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments

Brain injury biomarkers are not dependent on β‐amyloid in normal elderly

Open access
Knopman, David S., Jack, Clifford R., Wiste, Heather J., Weigand, Stephen D., Vemuri, Prashanthi, Lowe, Val J., Kantarci, Kejal, Gunter, Jeffrey L. +5 more·2013·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Objective: The new criteria for preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD) proposed 3 stages: abnormal levels of β‐amyloid (stage 1), stage 1 plus evidence of brain injury (stage 2), and stage 2 plus subtle cognitive changes (stage 3). However, a large group of subjects with normal β‐amyloid biomarkers have evidence of brain injury; we labeled them as the “suspected non‐Alzheimer pathophysiology” (sNAP) group. The characteristics of the sNAP group are poorly understood. Methods: Using the preclinical AD classification, 430 cognitively normal subjects from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who underwent brain magnetic resonance (MR), 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), and Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET) were evaluated for FDG PET regional volumetrics, MR regional brain volumetrics, white matter hyperintensity volume, and number of infarcts. We examined cross‐sectional associations across AD preclinical stages, those with all biomarkers normal, and the sNAP group. Results: The sNAP group had a lower proportion (14%) with apolipoprotein E ε4 genotype than the preclinical AD stages 2 + 3. The sNAP group did not show any group differences compared to stages 2 + 3 of the preclinical AD group on measures of FDG PET regional hypometabolism, MR regional brain volume loss, cerebrovascular imaging lesions, vascular risk factors, imaging changes associated with α‐synucleinopathy, or physical findings of parkinsonism. Interpretation: Cognitively normal persons with brain injury biomarker abnormalities, with or without abnormal levels of β‐amyloid, were indistinguishable on a variety of imaging markers, clinical features, and risk factors. The initial appearance of brain injury biomarkers that occurs in cognitively normal persons with preclinical AD may not depend on β‐amyloidosis. ANN NEUROL 2013;73:472–480

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.23816

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The rate of cognitive decline is significantly greater for cognitively impaired and CU individuals who have abnormalities in both an amyloid biomarker and a second biomarker type (CSF T-tau or P-tau, atrophy, or hypometabolism) in comparison to individuals who have neither or only one of these biomarker abnormalities.

    “The rate of cognitive decline is significantly greater for cognitively impaired and CU individuals who have abnormalities in both an amyloid biomarker and a second biomarker type (which could be CSF T-tau or P-tau, atrophy, or hypometabolism) in comparison to individuals who have neither or only one of these biomarker abnormalities [30–35,39,40,42–45].”

    From NIA‐AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (2018) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) reports that cognitively normal participants with both amyloid and brain-injury abnormalities had a higher one-year risk of cognitive decline than groups with only one abnormality. It does not establish the claimed significant difference in rates across cognitively impaired and cognitively unimpaired people; this study examined cognitively normal participants and used atrophy or hypometabolism, not CSF tau, as its brain-injury biomarkers. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The combination of an abnormal MRI, CSF T-tau, or FDG PET study with an abnormal amyloid biomarker provides much more powerful prediction of future cognitive decline than an abnormal amyloid study alone.

    “However, the combination of an abnormal MRI, CSF T-tau, or FDG PET study with an abnormal amyloid biomarker provides much more powerful prediction of future cognitive decline [30–35,39,40,42–45] than an abnormal amyloid study alone.”

    From NIA‐AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease (2018) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) reports that cognitively normal participants with amyloid and brain-injury biomarker abnormalities (preclinical stages 2–3) had more than twice the one-year risk of cognitive decline of those with abnormal amyloid alone (stage 1). The paper uses MRI and FDG PET as brain-injury markers, but not CSF T-tau; its own analysis is cross-sectional rather than a direct test of future prediction. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For many subjects with suspected AD or increased risk, what are currently considered downstream biomarker changes potentially precede upstream biomarker changes.

    “Our hypothesis, therefore, can accommodate a growing realization that for many subjects with suspected AD, or who have an increased risk of developing AD, what are currently considered downstream biomarker changes potentially precede upstream biomarker changes [206-213].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knopman, D. S., Jack, C. R., Wiste, H. J., Weigand, S. D., Vemuri, P., Lowe, V. J., Kantarci, K., Gunter, J. L., Senjem, M. L., Mielke, M. M., Roberts, R. O., Boeve, B. F., & Petersen, R. C.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Knopman, David S.
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-19
Volume
73
Issue
4
Pages
472-480
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W1948376220
Cited by
183
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 17
FWCI
16.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01AG11378, P50‐AG16574, U01AG06786, U01AG006786, R01AG011378, R01 AG41851, R01AG041851, P50AG016574)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
preclinical Alzheimer's disease, brain injury biomarkers, amyloid-beta, cognitively normal elderly, APOE ε4, FDG-PET hypometabolism, brain atrophy, white matter hyperintensities, cerebral infarction, cerebrovascular risk factors, synucleinopathies, parkinsonism, Mayo Clinic Study of Aging
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain, Cerebral Cortex, Cerebrovascular Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Positron-Emission Tomography, Synucleins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review