Cited by 93Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus

Unbiased estimates of cerebrospinal fluid β-amyloid 1–42 cutoffs in a large memory clinic population

Open access
Bertens, Daniela, Tijms, Betty M., Scheltens, Philip, Teunissen, Charlotte E., Visser, Pieter Jelle·2017·Alzheimer's Research & Therapy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We sought to define a cutoff for β-amyloid 1-42 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), a key marker for Alzheimer's disease (AD), with data-driven Gaussian mixture modeling in a memory clinic population. METHODS: We performed a combined cross-sectional and prospective cohort study. We selected 2462 subjects with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, AD-type dementia, and dementia other than AD from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort. We defined CSF β-amyloid 1-42 cutoffs by data-driven Gaussian mixture modeling in the total population and in subgroups based on clinical diagnosis, age, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype. We investigated whether abnormal β-amyloid 1-42 as defined by the data-driven cutoff could better predict progression to AD-type dementia than abnormal β-amyloid 1-42 defined by a clinical diagnosis-based cutoff using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: In the total group of patients, we found a cutoff for abnormal CSF β-amyloid 1-42 of 680 pg/ml (95% CI 660-705 pg/ml). Similar cutoffs were found within diagnostic and APOE genotype subgroups. The cutoff was higher in elderly subjects than in younger subjects. The data-driven cutoff was higher than our clinical diagnosis-based cutoff and had a better predictive accuracy for progression to AD-type dementia in nondemented subjects (HR 7.6 versus 5.2, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Mixture modeling is a robust method to determine cutoffs for CSF β-amyloid 1-42. It might better capture biological changes that are related to AD than cutoffs based on clinical diagnosis.

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 · 10.1186/s13195-016-0233-7

Cites

34 of 34 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?

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
Bertens, D., Tijms, B. M., Scheltens, P., Teunissen, C. E., & Visser, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Corresponding author
Visser, Pieter Jelle
Venue
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
Published
2017-02-14
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
8-8
ISSN
1758-9193 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2588515696
Cited by
91
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Alzheimer s Research & Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • IMI (115372)
  • JPND (BIOMARKAPD)
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 › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Cerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus
Keywords
Alzheimer's disease, diagnostic thresholds, Gaussian mixture model, subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, dementia progression, APOE genotype, biomarkers
MeSH terms
Aged, Apolipoproteins E, Cognition Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dementia, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Peptide Fragments, Prospective Studies, Biomarkers, Proportional Hazards Models, Amyloid beta-Peptides

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