Assessment of Screening Approach in Early and Differential Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis
Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in the elderly population. Currently, diagnosis is based on invasive and expensive techniques, so there is a growing need to look for other possible tests, as well as carry out clinical validation. Studies from the literature show...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d440933269cf4680b311ed7d20487686 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia in the elderly population. Currently, diagnosis is based on invasive and expensive techniques, so there is a growing need to look for other possible tests, as well as carry out clinical validation. Studies from the literature showed potential diagnosis models, including some AD risk factors (age, gender, ApoE-ε4 genotype) and other variables (biomarkers levels, neuroimaging). Specifically, a recent model was performed from lipid peroxidation compounds in plasma samples to identify patients with early AD. However, there is a lack of studies about clinical validation of these preliminary diagnosis models. Methods: Plasma samples from participants classified into AD (<i>n</i> = 61), non-AD (<i>n</i> = 17), and healthy (<i>n</i> = 44) were analyzed. In fact, lipid peroxidation compounds were determined by liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Then, a previously developed diagnosis model was clinically validated, evaluating some diagnosis indexes. Results: The validation of the preliminary diagnosis model showed satisfactory diagnosis indexes (accuracy 77%, sensitivity 89%, specificity 61%, diagnostic odds ratio 12.5, positive predictive value 76%). Next, a useful screening tool, including the ApoE genotype, was developed, identifying patients with a higher risk of developing AD and improving the corresponding diagnosis indexes (accuracy 82%, sensitivity 81%, specificity 85%, diagnostic odds ratio 23.2, positive predictive value 90.5%). Conclusion: A new screening approach could improve the early, minimally invasive, and differential AD diagnosis in the general population. |
|---|