Cited by 217Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Amyloid beta 1-42 and tau in cerebrospinal fluid after severe traumatic brain injury

Franz, G., Beer, R., Kampfl, A., Engelhardt, K., Schmutzhard, E., Ulmer, H., Deisenhammer, F.·2003·Neurology

Abstract

Objective To determine whether CSF amyloid beta 1-42 (Abeta-42) and tau have predictive value for prognosis after head injury. Methods CSF samples were collected from 29 patients with severe head trauma between 1 and 284 days post-trauma. Abeta-42 and tau levels were measured using sandwich ELISA techniques and compared with CSF levels in patients with cognitive disorders and headache. Results At all time points, concentrations of Abeta-42 were significantly lower in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) than in control groups. A significant correlation existed for Abeta-42 levels and outcome of patients. Below a cutoff of 230 pg/mL, the sensitivity of Abeta-42 to discriminate between good outcome (Glasgow Outcome Score 4 and 5) and poor outcome (Glasgow Outcome Score 1 through 3) was 100% at a specificity of 82%. CSF tau levels were significantly higher in patients with TBI than in any control group. In patients with multiple CSF samples collected at various time points between 1 and 32 days after the trauma, tau levels increased early after TBI, peaked in the second week post-trauma, and slowly decreased thereafter. Independent of outcome, all patients had normal tau levels when CSF was collected more than 43 days post-trauma. Conclusions Abeta-42 and tau may play a potential role in the pathophysiology of TBI. Furthermore, the results of this study suggest that Abeta-42 may be a supportive early predictor for recovery after severe head injury.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/01.wnl.0000063313.57292.00

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Higher cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) levels of Aβ42 predict improved neurological recovery following severe TBI.

    “While several clinical studies report that higher cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) levels of Aβ42 predict improved neurological recovery following severe TBI (139, 140)”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 32 · Cited by 217

Authors
Franz, G., Beer, R., Kampfl, A., Engelhardt, K., Schmutzhard, E., Ulmer, H., & Deisenhammer, F.
Affiliations
Universität Innsbruck (AT)
Venue
Neurology
Published
2003-05-13
Volume
60
Issue
9
Pages
1457-1461
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2011984756
Cited by
217
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
amyloid-beta 42, tau protein, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, severe traumatic brain injury, prognosis, outcome prediction, Glasgow Outcome Scale, early recovery, biomarker kinetics
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Brain Damage, Chronic, Brain Injuries, Dementia, Female, Headache, Humans, Male, Peptide Fragments, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Biomarkers, Glasgow Coma Scale, Amyloid beta-Peptides, tau Proteins

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