↓ Skip to main content

Application of the NIA-AA Research Framework: Towards a Biological Definition of Alzheimer’s Disease using Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in the AIBL Study

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, May 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Application of the NIA-AA Research Framework: Towards a Biological Definition of Alzheimer’s Disease using Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in the AIBL Study
Published in
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, May 2019
DOI 10.14283/jpad.2019.25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha C. Burnham, P. M. Coloma, Q.-X. Li, S. Collins, G. Savage, S. Laws, J. Doecke, P. Maruff, R. N. Martins, D. Ames, C. C. Rowe, C. L. Masters, V. L. Villemagne

Abstract

The National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) have proposed a new Research Framework: Towards a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease, which uses a three-biomarker construct: Aß-amyloid, tau and neurodegeneration AT(N), to generate a biomarker based definition of Alzheimer's disease. To stratify AIBL participants using the new NIA-AA Research Framework using cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. To evaluate the clinical and cognitive profiles of the different groups resultant from the AT(N) stratification. To compare the findings to those that result from stratification using two-biomarker construct criteria (AT and/or A(N)). Individuals were classified as being positive or negative for each of the A, T, and (N) categories and then assigned to the appropriate AT(N) combinatorial group: A-T-(N)-; A+T-(N)-; A+T+(N)-; A+T-(N)+; A+T+(N)+; A-T+(N)-; A-T-(N)+; A-T+(N)+. In line with the NIA-AA research framework, these eight AT(N) groups were then collapsed into four main groups of interest (normal AD biomarkers, AD pathologic change, AD and non-AD pathologic change) and the respective clinical and cognitive trajectories over 4.5 years for each group were assessed. In two sensitivity analyses the methods were replicated after assigning individuals to four groups based on being positive or negative for AT biomarkers as well as A(N) biomarkers. Two study centers in Melbourne (Victoria) and Perth (Western Australia), Australia recruited MCI individuals and individuals with AD from primary care physicians or tertiary memory disorder clinics. Cognitively healthy, elderly NCs were recruited through advertisement or via spouses of participants in the study. One-hundred and forty NC, 33 MCI participants, and 27 participants with AD from the AIBL study who had undergone CSF evaluation using Elecsys® assays. INTERVENTION (if any): Not applicable. Three CSF biomarkers, namely amyloid β1-42, phosphorylated tau181, and total tau, were measured to provide the AT(N) classifications. Clinical and cognitive trajectories were evaluated using the AIBL Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (AIBL-PACC), a verbal episodic memory composite, an executive function composite, California Verbal Learning Test - Second Edition; Long-Delay Free Recall, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores. Thirty-eight percent of the elderly NCs had no evidence of abnormal AD biomarkers, whereas 33% had biomarker levels consistent with AD or AD pathologic change, and 29% had evidence of non-AD biomarker change. Among NC participants, those with biomarker evidence of AD pathology tended to perform worse on cognitive outcome assessments than other biomarker groups. Approximately three in four participants with MCI or AD had biomarker levels consistent with the research framework's definition of AD or AD pathologic change. For MCI participants, a decrease in AIBL-PACC scores was observed with increasing abnormal biomarkers; and increased abnormal biomarkers were also associated with increased rates of decline across some cognitive measures. Increasing biomarker abnormality appears to be associated with worse cognitive trajectories. The implementation of biomarker classifications could help better characterize prognosis in clinical practice and identify those at-risk individuals more likely to clinically progress, for their inclusion in future therapeutic trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 15 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Psychology 8 10%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 28 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#14,920,631
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#486
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,321
of 365,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#14
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.