Cited by 57Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCerebrospinal fluid and hydrocephalus

Accuracy of Biomarker Testing for Neuropathologically Defined Alzheimer Disease in Older Adults With Dementia: A Systematic Review

Fink, Howard A., Linskens, Eric J., Silverman, Pombie C., McCarten, J. Riley, Hemmy, Laura S., Ouellette, Jeannine M., Greer, Nancy L., Wilt, Timothy J. +1 more·2020·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background: Biomarker accuracy for Alzheimer disease (AD) is uncertain. Purpose: To summarize evidence on biomarker accuracy for classifying AD in older adults with dementia. Data Sources: Electronic bibliographic databases (searched from January 2012 to November 2019 for brain imaging and cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] tests and from inception to November 2019 for blood tests), ClinicalTrials.gov (to November 2019), and systematic review bibliographies. Study Selection: English-language studies evaluating the accuracy of brain imaging, CSF testing, or blood tests for distinguishing neuropathologically defined AD from non-AD among older adults with dementia. Studies with low or medium risk of bias were analyzed. Data Extraction: Two reviewers rated risk of bias. One extracted data; the other verified accuracy. Data Synthesis: Fifteen brain imaging studies and 9 CSF studies met analysis criteria. Median sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 0.91 and 0.92 for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), 0.89 and 0.74 for 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET, 0.64 and 0.83 for single-photon emission computed tomography, and 0.91 and 0.89 for medial temporal lobe atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Individual CSF biomarkers and ratios had moderate sensitivity (range, 0.62 to 0.83) and specificity (range, 0.53 to 0.69); in the few direct comparisons, β-amyloid 42 (Aβ42)/phosphorylated tau (p-tau) ratio, total tau (t-tau)/Aβ42 ratio, and p-tau appeared more accurate than Aβ42 and t-tau alone. Single studies suggested that amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, and CSF test combinations may add accuracy to clinical evaluation. Limitations: Studies were small, biomarker cut points and neuropathologic AD were inconsistently defined, and methods with uncertain applicability to typical clinical settings were used. Few studies directly compared biomarkers, assessed test combinations, evaluated whether biomarkers improved classification accuracy when added to clinical evaluation, or reported harms. Conclusion: In methodologically heterogeneous studies of uncertain applicability to typical clinical settings, amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, and MRI were highly sensitive for neuropathologic AD. Amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, and CSF test combinations may add accuracy to clinical evaluation. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018117897)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m19-3888

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • A systematic review by Fink et al. showed FDG-PET comparing AD to non-AD dementias has median sensitivity 0.89 and specificity 0.74.

    “A recent systematic review by Fink et al. analysed the accuracy of FDG-PET comparing AD to non-AD dementias and showed a median sensitivity of 0.89 and specificity of 0.74 [111].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fink, H. A., Linskens, E. J., Silverman, P. C., McCarten, J. R., Hemmy, L. S., Ouellette, J. M., Greer, N. L., Wilt, T. J., & Butler, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Minneapolis VA Health Care System (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2020-05-19
Volume
172
Issue
10
Pages
669-677
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W3017957646
Cited by
57
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, biomarker accuracy, dementia, amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, SPECT, medial temporal lobe atrophy, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, blood biomarkers, tau protein, amyloid, diagnostic accuracy, older adults, combined biomarker detection, risk of bias, sensitivity and specificity, risk of overdiagnosis
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Brain, Dementia, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Reproducibility of Results, 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.

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