CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesHereditary Neurological Disorders

Establishing demographic-based normative values for neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acidic protein in serum and plasma samples

Open access
Borko, Tyler L, Ritchie, Alanna, Selva, Sean, Sillau, Stefan, Engebretson, Eric, Wolf, Andrew B, Alvarez, Enrique, Gross, Robert +10 more·2026·Multiple Sclerosis Journal – Experimental, Translational and Clinical
DOI 10.1177/20552173261466440PMC PMC13389189
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Interpretation of neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) levels in blood requires reference ranges from healthy cohorts, accounting for demographic features. Objective: To compare serum and plasma NfL and GFAP in healthy individuals, accounting for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Methods: Adolescents through older adults were recruited at Colorado community events and a senior clinic. A neurologist reviewed self-reported medical histories. Paired serum and EDTA plasma samples were assayed using the Quanterix SR-X Simoa Neuro 4-Plex. Log-linear models estimated percent change per year of age, per BMI unit, and sex ratios. GFAP used a piecewise age model (knot at 30 years). Spearman correlation assessed serum–plasma concordance. Results: We enrolled 143 participants (ages = 16.4–85.9; 63.6% female; mean BMI = 26.7). Serum–plasma correlations were strong (NfL ρ = .923; GFAP ρ = .833; both p < .001). In plasma, age was associated with a 2.96% increase in NfL and 2.34% in GFAP per year for ages ≥30. In serum, NfL rose 2.90% and GFAP 2.69% per year (both p < .0001). Conclusion: NfL and GFAP are strongly age-dependent and concordant across serum and plasma in healthy individuals. An online calculator provides age-, sex-, and BMI-adjusted reference estimates and serum/plasma conversions.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 143 screened healthy controls, serum and plasma NfL and GFAP were strongly correlated but not interchangeable, and age was the dominant predictor of both biomarkers. The authors provide age-, sex-, and BMI-adjusted reference estimates plus an online calculator and serum–plasma conversion formulas.

Key findings

  • Serum–plasma correlations were strong: NfL ρ = .923 and GFAP ρ = .833 (both p < .001).
  • In plasma, NfL increased 2.96% per year of age (95% CI 2.55–3.36, p < .0001) and GFAP increased 2.34% per year for ages ≥30 (95% CI 1.86–2.82, p < .0001); GFAP decreased 2.28% per year below age 30 (95% CI 0.39–4.13, p = .0185).
  • In serum, NfL increased 2.90% per year (95% CI 2.57–3.24, p < .0001) and GFAP increased 2.69% per year for ages ≥30 (95% CI 2.19–3.19, p < .0001); GFAP decreased 2.71% per year below age 30 (95% CI 0.64–4.73, p = .0108).
  • Higher BMI was associated with lower plasma NfL (−1.70% per BMI unit, 95% CI 0.42–2.96, p = .0095) and lower serum NfL (−1.88% per BMI unit, 95% CI 0.76–2.97, p = .0011); GFAP BMI effects were not statistically significant. Adjusted serum GFAP was lower in males (male:female 0.82, 95% CI 0.71–0.95, p = .0077).

Methods

  • Prospective recruitment of adolescents through older adults at Colorado community events and a senior clinic; 143 participants enrolled (ages 16.4–85.9; 63.6% female; mean BMI 26.7), with self-reported medical histories reviewed by a neurologist.
  • Paired serum and EDTA plasma samples were assayed using the Quanterix SR-X Simoa Neuro 4-Plex; NfL and GFAP were natural log-transformed for analysis.
  • Log-linear models estimated percent change per year of age, per BMI unit, and sex ratios; GFAP used a piecewise age model with a knot at 30 years. Spearman correlation assessed serum–plasma concordance, and linear regressions of log(serum) on log(plasma) and vice versa derived conversion formulas.

Limitations

  • The paper states that data are cross-sectional, so it reports associations across age rather than within-person longitudinal change; medical history and symptom screening were self-reported and may not fully exclude subclinical conditions; the cohort may not fully represent all Colorado demographic groups; youngest and oldest strata had smaller sample sizes and wider confidence intervals; renal function/eGFR was not systematically incorporated, which could introduce residual confounding; and prediction intervals are wide due to individual variability.
  • The paper also notes that only two participants endorsed regular tobacco use, limiting assessment of that covariate, and that sex-stratified BMI analyses had modest sample sizes and variable significance, possibly reflecting limited power rather than definitive biologic effect modification.
  • Evident from the text: BMI effects for GFAP were not statistically significant and sex-stratified NfL BMI estimates varied in strength and significance, so BMI findings should be interpreted cautiously.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/20552173261466440

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

23 of 25 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Most studies of NfL rely on serum.

    “Third, the inconsistent use of serum versus plasma further complicates comparisons, as most studies of NfL rely on serum.4,6,9,12–14”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim6 of 6 sources checked
    • cites [4] Niiranen M Kontkanen A Jääskeläinen O, et al. Serum GFAP and NfL levels in benign relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2021; 56: 103280. 34627002 source

      The Introduction says that NfL levels have mainly been reported in CSF-based studies in MS patients, although they can also be measured in serum. This paper measures serum NfL, but its statement about the broader MS literature runs contrary to the claim that most NfL studies rely on serum. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [6] Ammitzbøll C Dyrby TB Börnsen L, et al. Nfl and GFAP in serum are associated with microstructural brain damage in progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2023; 77: 104854. 37418931 source
    • cites [9] Fitzgerald KC Sotirchos ES Smith MD, et al. Contributors to serum NfL levels in people without neurologic disease. Ann Neurol 2022; 92: 688– 698. 35730070 PMC9489658 source
    • cites [12] Disanto G Barro C Benkert P, et al. Serum neurofilament light: a biomarker of neuronal damage in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2017; 81: 857– 870. 28512753 PMC5519945 source

      The Methods describe measuring NfL in serum samples, so this paper is an example of a serum-based NfL study. The Discussion also mentions earlier serum studies, but neither section establishes that most NfL studies use serum rather than plasma. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.80)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [13] Cantó E Barro C Zhao C, et al. Association between serum neurofilament light chain levels and long-term disease course among patients with multiple sclerosis followed up for 12 years. JAMA Neurol 2019; 76: 1359– 1366. 31403661 PMC6692664 source

      The sNFL Measurements section shows that this study used serum samples, and the Discussion mentions other studies using serum NfL. The paper does not establish that most NfL studies use serum rather than plasma, so it supports an example of serum use but not the claimed majority. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [14] Huebschmann NA Luoto TM Karr JE, et al. Comparing glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in serum and plasma following mild traumatic brain injury in older adults. Front Neurol 2020; 11: 1054. 33071938 PMC7530818 source

      The Results and Discussion passages concern serum versus plasma GFAP, not the sample type used in most NfL studies. Searches for NfL and neurofilament light found individual studies in the References but no passage assessing whether most NfL studies rely on serum. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Some studies report median differences between serum and plasma NfL and GFAP.

    “Some studies report median differences,15–18 and only one has proposed a serum–plasma conversion for NfL in older adults, 19 with none for GFAP.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [15] Kwon HS Lee H Kim YS, et al. Comparing neurofilament light chain levels in serum and plasma. Dement Neurocogn Disord 2023; 22: 109– 111. 37545865 PMC10400347 source

      The results section (page not provided) reports different median serum and plasma NfL levels: 27.7 and 29.6 pg/mL, respectively. The paper does not report GFAP measurements or a serum–plasma GFAP comparison, so it supports only the NfL part of the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [16] Youssef P Hughes L Kim WS, et al. Evaluation of plasma levels of NFL, GFAP, UCHL1 and tau as Parkinson’s disease biomarkers using multiplexed single molecule counting. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 5217. 36997567 PMC10063670 source

      The Discussion reports that serum NfL and GFAP levels were approximately 1.3-fold higher than plasma levels, supporting a descriptive difference. The Results state that neither difference was statistically significant, and the cited passages do not report median differences specifically. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [17] Altmann P Ponleitner M Rommer PS, et al. Seven day pre-analytical stability of serum and plasma neurofilament light chain. Sci Rep 2021; 11: 11034. 34040118 PMC8154890 source

      The Discussion reports a serum–plasma difference for NfL: mean plasma concentration was 10% lower than serum concentration. It does not report a median difference or address GFAP. The later claim about conversion is attached to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [18] Hviid CVB Knudsen CS Parkner T. Reference interval and preanalytical properties of serum neurofilament light chain in Scandinavian adults. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2020; 80: 291– 295. 32077769 source
  • Premisecitation

    Strong intraindividual correlations exist between serum and plasma NfL and GFAP.

    “While strong intraindividual correlations exist between serum and plasma NfL and GFAP,14–16 absolute values differ, preventing interchangeability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [14] Huebschmann NA Luoto TM Karr JE, et al. Comparing glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in serum and plasma following mild traumatic brain injury in older adults. Front Neurol 2020; 11: 1054. 33071938 PMC7530818 source

      The Discussion (Plasma vs. Serum GFAP; page not provided) reports strong serum–plasma GFAP correlations, and the Results (Findings in the Total Sample; page not provided) report a systematic difference in their values. This paper does not establish the corresponding correlation or value difference for NfL, so it supports only the GFAP portion of the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [15] Kwon HS Lee H Kim YS, et al. Comparing neurofilament light chain levels in serum and plasma. Dement Neurocogn Disord 2023; 22: 109– 111. 37545865 PMC10400347 source

      In “Comparing Neurofilament Light Chain Levels in Serum and Plasma,” the authors report a strong within-participant correlation between serum and plasma NfL (Spearman’s rho = 0.961). The paper does not report a serum–plasma GFAP correlation, so it supports only the NfL part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [16] Youssef P Hughes L Kim WS, et al. Evaluation of plasma levels of NFL, GFAP, UCHL1 and tau as Parkinson’s disease biomarkers using multiplexed single molecule counting. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 5217. 36997567 PMC10063670 source
  • Premisecitation

    Levels of NfL and GFAP vary with demographic and physiologic factors such as age, BMI, renal function, and hemoglobin A1C.

    “Levels vary with demographic and physiologic factors such as age, body mass index (BMI), renal function, and hemoglobin A1C.9–11”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [9] Fitzgerald KC Sotirchos ES Smith MD, et al. Contributors to serum NfL levels in people without neurologic disease. Ann Neurol 2022; 92: 688– 698. 35730070 PMC9489658 source

      The Results (Assessment of contributors to variability in sNfL levels; page unavailable) associate serum NfL with age, creatinine, and HbA1c, and report a BMI association most notable among underweight participants. The paper studies NfL, not GFAP, so it does not support attributing these associations to GFAP. (LLM, conf=0.89)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [10] Manouchehrinia A Piehl F Hillert J, et al. Confounding effect of blood volume and body mass index on blood neurofilament light chain levels. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2020; 7: 139– 143. 31893563 PMC6952306 source

      The Results report an association between BMI and plasma NfL in controls and multiple sclerosis cases, and the Introduction describes NfL expression as age-dependent. The paper does not address GFAP, renal function, or hemoglobin A1C, and it does not establish an age association specifically for blood NfL. (LLM, conf=0.89)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [11] Yalachkov Y Schäfer JH Jakob J, et al. Effect of estimated blood volume and body mass index on GFAP and NfL levels in the serum and CSF of patients with multiple sclerosis. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2023; 10: e200094. PMC9673750 36316116 source

      The Results (page not supplied) identify age and BMI as predictors of serum GFAP in this cohort, and the Discussion reports prior evidence linking BMI to serum NfL while noting that this study did not confirm that association after adjustment. The cited paper does not establish the claimed variation with renal function or hemoglobin A1C. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Absolute values of serum and plasma NfL and GFAP differ, preventing interchangeability.

    “While strong intraindividual correlations exist between serum and plasma NfL and GFAP,14–16 absolute values differ, preventing interchangeability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [14] Huebschmann NA Luoto TM Karr JE, et al. Comparing glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in serum and plasma following mild traumatic brain injury in older adults. Front Neurol 2020; 11: 1054. 33071938 PMC7530818 source

      The Results (Findings in the Total Sample; page not available) report a systematic difference between plasma and serum GFAP concentrations, supporting the concern that their absolute values cannot simply be exchanged. The cited paper does not report a serum–plasma NfL comparison, so it does not support extending the claim to NfL. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [15] Kwon HS Lee H Kim YS, et al. Comparing neurofilament light chain levels in serum and plasma. Dement Neurocogn Disord 2023; 22: 109– 111. 37545865 PMC10400347 source

      The study text (page not specified in our copy) reports a strong within-person serum–plasma NfL correlation and significantly different median NfL concentrations. It does not study GFAP or conclude that the difference prevents interchangeability; it says the clinical significance of the NfL difference might be low. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [16] Youssef P Hughes L Kim WS, et al. Evaluation of plasma levels of NFL, GFAP, UCHL1 and tau as Parkinson’s disease biomarkers using multiplexed single molecule counting. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 5217. 36997567 PMC10063670 source

      The Results section reports that serum NfL and GFAP levels were slightly higher than plasma levels, and its Bland–Altman analysis suggests the results may not be readily interchangeable. But it found no statistically significant differences, and the Discussion says both biomarkers are suitable for measurement in either serum or plasma. The claim's categorical statement that differing values prevent interchangeability is stronger than the paper's conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims. 11
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 5

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Only one study has proposed a serum-plasma conversion for NfL in older adults, and none for GFAP.

    “Some studies report median differences,15–18 and only one has proposed a serum–plasma conversion for NfL in older adults, 19 with none for GFAP.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] Rübsamen N Willemse EAJ Leppert D, et al. A method to combine neurofilament light measurements from blood serum and plasma in clinical and population-based studies. Front Neurol 2022; 13: 894119. 35775045 PMC9237479 source

      The Discussion says the authors derived a formula to convert EDTA-plasma NfL values to serum values, and the Methods say they applied it to the older MEMO cohort. The formula was derived from paired samples in the younger BiDirect cohort, however. The paper does not establish that it was the only such study or address whether any GFAP conversion existed (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Systematic differences in absolute values and pre-analytic factors can influence serum and plasma measurements.

    “While within-person correlations between serum and plasma are typically strong, systematic differences in absolute values and pre-analytic factors can influence measurements.14–16,19”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim4 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [14] Huebschmann NA Luoto TM Karr JE, et al. Comparing glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) in serum and plasma following mild traumatic brain injury in older adults. Front Neurol 2020; 11: 1054. 33071938 PMC7530818 source
    • cites [15] Kwon HS Lee H Kim YS, et al. Comparing neurofilament light chain levels in serum and plasma. Dement Neurocogn Disord 2023; 22: 109– 111. 37545865 PMC10400347 source

      The main text (page not provided) reports a strong serum–plasma correlation and significantly different absolute NfL levels in the 38 participants. It does not establish that pre-analytic factors influence the measurements; those factors appear only in titles in the References section. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [16] Youssef P Hughes L Kim WS, et al. Evaluation of plasma levels of NFL, GFAP, UCHL1 and tau as Parkinson’s disease biomarkers using multiplexed single molecule counting. Sci Rep 2023; 13: 5217. 36997567 PMC10063670 source
    • cites [19] Rübsamen N Willemse EAJ Leppert D, et al. A method to combine neurofilament light measurements from blood serum and plasma in clinical and population-based studies. Front Neurol 2022; 13: 894119. 35775045 PMC9237479 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The study enrolled 143 participants (ages 16.4-85.9; 63.6% female; mean BMI 26.7).

    “We enrolled 143 participants (ages = 16.4–85.9; 63.6% female; mean BMI = 26.7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    NfL and GFAP are strongly age-dependent and concordant across serum and plasma in healthy individuals.

    “NfL and GFAP are strongly age-dependent and concordant across serum and plasma in healthy individuals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    A screening tool was used to determine the presence or absence of self-reported comorbidities, including other major neurologic or autoimmune disease, and these were reviewed by a neurologist.

    “We created a screening tool (Appendix A in the supplementary materials) to determine the presence or absence of self-reported comorbidities including other major neurologic or autoimmune disease which were reviewed by a neurologist (Figure 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The screening questionnaire and neurologist review adequately identify healthy individuals without conditions that affect NfL or GFAP levels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The absence of adjustment for eGFR could have introduced residual confounding and may partially influence the observed age-related associations.

    “Because biomarkers such as NfL and GFAP may be influenced by kidney function, and renal function changes with age, the absence of adjustment for measures such as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) could have introduced residual confounding and may partially influence the observed age-related associations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    GFAP demonstrated a similar inverse directional trend with BMI, but BMI effects were not statistically significant.

    “GFAP demonstrated a similar inverse directional trend, but BMI effects were not statistically significant (Tables 3 and 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Conversion predictions are limited to the range of the observed data, and approximations are not advised outside that range.

    “Conversion predictions are limited to range of the observed data used and approximations are not advised outside of that range.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Strong serum-plasma correlations support concordant trends across matrices but do not imply interchangeability of absolute values.

    “Strong serum-plasma correlations support concordant trends across matrices but do not imply interchangeability of absolute values.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Only two participants endorsed regular tobacco use, limiting the ability to understand the impact of this covariate on GFAP and NfL.

    “Only two participants in the entire cohort endorsed regular tobacco use, which limits the ability to understand the impact of this covariate on GFAP and NfL.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The cohort may not fully represent all Colorado demographic groups.

    “Third, despite community outreach, the cohort may not fully represent all Colorado demographic groups;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Medical history and symptom screening were self-reported and may not fully exclude subclinical conditions that influence biomarker levels.

    “Second, medical history and symptom screening were self-reported and may not fully exclude subclinical conditions that influence biomarker levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The study complements prior efforts by adding GFAP and by providing paired plasma and serum reference estimates derived from a screened, community-based cohort.

    “Our work complements these efforts by adding GFAP and by providing paired plasma and serum reference estimates derived from a screened, community-based cohort.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
13 of 13

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The screening questionnaire and neurologist review adequately identify healthy individuals without conditions that affect NfL or GFAP levels.

    “We created a screening tool (Appendix A in the supplementary materials) to determine the presence or absence of self-reported comorbidities including other major neurologic or autoimmune disease which were reviewed by a neurologist (Figure 2).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Age-related increases in NfL and GFAP reflect normal aging rather than subclinical disease.

    “Second, medical history and symptom screening were self-reported and may not fully exclude subclinical conditions that influence biomarker levels.”
2 of 2

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Youngest serum GFAP confidence limit differs from Table 2

    Minor

    The text gives 42.28 pg/mL as the lower confidence limit for ages 16-19; Table 2 gives 44.28 pg/mL.

  • Abstract and methods name different serum assay kits

    Minor

    The abstract describes the samples as assayed using the Neuro 4-Plex, but the methods specify the Neuro 2-Plex kit for serum.

  • Plasma GFAP range omits a lower age-group mean

    Minor

    The stated lower end of the plasma GFAP range is 49.99 pg/mL, but Table 2 reports a lower geometric mean of 43.11 pg/mL for ages 30-39.

  • Youngest serum NfL mean differs from Table 2

    Minor

    The text reports 3.34 pg/mL for ages 16-19, while Table 2 reports 3.36 pg/mL for that group.

  • Serum GFAP BMI confidence interval differs between text and table

    Minor

    The text gives an interval extending from −0.25 to +2.38, whereas Table 4 gives −2.38 to −0.25. The table's interval excludes zero despite the reported nonsignificant p-value.

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. SAS Institute Inc. The SAS System for Windows, Version 9.4. Cary NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc., 2016.
  2. 10.1016/S1474-4422(22)00009-6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borko, T. L., Ritchie, A., Selva, S., Sillau, S., Engebretson, E., Wolf, A. B., Alvarez, E., Gross, R., Gutierrez, E., Corboy, J., Silva, D., Kammeyer, R., Piquet, A. L., Vollmer, T. L., Chahin, S., Owens, G., Bennett, J. L., & Nair, K. V.
Affiliations
  • Midwestern University (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Nair, Kavita V
ORCID
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal – Experimental, Translational and Clinical
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2026-07
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
20552173261466440-20552173261466440
ISSN
2055-2173 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/20552173261466440
PMC
PMC13389189
OpenAlex
W7169827129
Semantic Scholar
d9c3b28da73534912596edf80eaaf6c2ffbc5d00
Cited by
1
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
3.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental Translational and Clinical (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Hereditary Neurological Disorders
Keywords
neurofilament light chain, glial fibrillary acidic protein, reference values, age-related changes, sex differences, body mass index, healthy adults, adolescents, biomarkers

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-17.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-17.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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