OBJECTIVE: To use values of cerebrospinal fluid tau and β-amyloid obtained from 2 different analytical immunoassays to differentiate Alzheimer disease (AD) from frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). DESIGN: Cerebrospinal fluid values of total tau (T-tau) and β-amyloid 1-42 (Aβ 1-42) obtained using the Innotest enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were transformed using a linear regression model to equivalent values obtained using the INNO-BIA AlzBio3 (xMAP; Luminex) assay. Cutoff values obtained from the xMAP assay were developed in a series of autopsy-confirmed cases and cross validated in another series of autopsy-confirmed samples using transformed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay values to assess sensitivity and specificity for differentiating AD from FTLD. SETTING: Tertiary memory disorder clinics and neuropathologic and biomarker core centers. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five samples from patients with cerebrospinal fluid data obtained from both assays were used for transformation of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay values. Forty autopsy-confirmed cases (30 with AD and 10 with FTLD) were used to establish diagnostic cutoff values and then cross validated in a second sample set of 21 autopsy-confirmed cases (11 with AD and 10 with FTLD) with transformed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay values. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic accuracy using transformed biomarker values. RESULTS: Data obtained from both assays were highly correlated. The T-tau to Aβ 1-42 ratio had the highest correlation between measures (r = 0.928, P < .001) and high reliability of transformation (intraclass correlation coefficient= 0.89). A cutoff of 0.34 for the T-tau to Aβ 1-42 ratio had 90% and 100% sensitivity and 96.7% and 91% specificity to differentiate FTLD cases in the validation and cross-validation samples, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Values from 2 analytical platforms can be transformed into equivalent units, which can distinguish AD from FTLD more accurately than the clinical diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To use values of cerebrospinal fluid tau and β-amyloid obtained from 2 different analytical immunoassays to differentiate Alzheimer disease (AD) from frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). DESIGN: Cerebrospinal fluid values of total tau (T-tau) and β-amyloid 1-42 (Aβ 1-42) obtained using the Innotest enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were transformed using a linear regression model to equivalent values obtained using the INNO-BIA AlzBio3 (xMAP; Luminex) assay. Cutoff values obtained from the xMAP assay were developed in a series of autopsy-confirmed cases and cross validated in another series of autopsy-confirmed samples using transformed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay values to assess sensitivity and specificity for differentiating AD from FTLD. SETTING:Tertiary memory disorder clinics and neuropathologic and biomarker core centers. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five samples from patients with cerebrospinal fluid data obtained from both assays were used for transformation of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay values. Forty autopsy-confirmed cases (30 with AD and 10 with FTLD) were used to establish diagnostic cutoff values and then cross validated in a second sample set of 21 autopsy-confirmed cases (11 with AD and 10 with FTLD) with transformed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay values. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diagnostic accuracy using transformed biomarker values. RESULTS: Data obtained from both assays were highly correlated. The T-tau to Aβ 1-42 ratio had the highest correlation between measures (r = 0.928, P < .001) and high reliability of transformation (intraclass correlation coefficient= 0.89). A cutoff of 0.34 for the T-tau to Aβ 1-42 ratio had 90% and 100% sensitivity and 96.7% and 91% specificity to differentiate FTLD cases in the validation and cross-validation samples, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Values from 2 analytical platforms can be transformed into equivalent units, which can distinguish AD from FTLD more accurately than the clinical diagnosis.
Authors: E D Roberson; J H Hesse; K D Rose; H Slama; J K Johnson; K Yaffe; M S Forman; C A Miller; J Q Trojanowski; J H Kramer; B L Miller Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-09-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Andrew Graham; Rhys Davies; John Xuereb; Glenda Halliday; Jillian Kril; Helen Creasey; Kim Graham; John Hodges Journal: Brain Date: 2005-01-05 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Annika Olsson; Hugo Vanderstichele; Niels Andreasen; Geert De Meyer; Anders Wallin; Björn Holmberg; Lars Rosengren; Eugeen Vanmechelen; Kaj Blennow Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2004-11-24 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Mark S Forman; Jennifer Farmer; Julene K Johnson; Christopher M Clark; Steven E Arnold; H Branch Coslett; Anjan Chatterjee; Howard I Hurtig; Jason H Karlawish; Howard J Rosen; Vivianna Van Deerlin; Virginia M-Y Lee; Bruce L Miller; John Q Trojanowski; Murray Grossman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Murray Grossman; Jennifer Farmer; Susan Leight; Melissa Work; Peachie Moore; Vivianna Van Deerlin; Domenico Pratico; Christopher M Clark; H Branch Coslett; Anjan Chatterjee; James Gee; John Q Trojanowski; Virginia M-Y Lee Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Thierry S M Reijn; Marcel Olde Rikkert; Wieneke J A van Geel; Danielle de Jong; Marcel M Verbeek Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2007-03-29 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: I G McKeith; D W Dickson; J Lowe; M Emre; J T O'Brien; H Feldman; J Cummings; J E Duda; C Lippa; E K Perry; D Aarsland; H Arai; C G Ballard; B Boeve; D J Burn; D Costa; T Del Ser; B Dubois; D Galasko; S Gauthier; C G Goetz; E Gomez-Tortosa; G Halliday; L A Hansen; J Hardy; T Iwatsubo; R N Kalaria; D Kaufer; R A Kenny; A Korczyn; K Kosaka; V M Y Lee; A Lees; I Litvan; E Londos; O L Lopez; S Minoshima; Y Mizuno; J A Molina; E B Mukaetova-Ladinska; F Pasquier; R H Perry; J B Schulz; J Q Trojanowski; M Yamada Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jon B Toledo; Henrik Zetterberg; Argonde C van Harten; Lidia Glodzik; Pablo Martinez-Lage; Luisella Bocchio-Chiavetto; Lorena Rami; Oskar Hansson; Reisa Sperling; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Ricardo S Osorio; Hugo Vanderstichele; Manu Vandijck; Harald Hampel; Stefan Teipl; Abhay Moghekar; Marilyn Albert; William T Hu; Jose A Monge Argilés; Ana Gorostidi; Charlotte E Teunissen; Peter P De Deyn; Bradley T Hyman; Jose L Molinuevo; Giovanni B Frisoni; Gurutz Linazasoro; Mony J de Leon; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Kaj Blennow; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Brain Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Corey T McMillan; Brian B Avants; Philip Cook; Lyle Ungar; John Q Trojanowski; Murray Grossman Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: C T McMillan; C Brun; S Siddiqui; M Churgin; D Libon; P Yushkevich; H Zhang; A Boller; J Gee; M Grossman Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David J Irwin; Alberto Lleó; Sharon X Xie; Corey T McMillan; David A Wolk; Edward B Lee; Viviana M Van Deerlin; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski; Murray Grossman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-08-19 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Corey T McMillan; Jon B Toledo; Brian B Avants; Philip A Cook; Elisabeth M Wood; Eunran Suh; David J Irwin; John Powers; Christopher Olm; Lauren Elman; Leo McCluskey; Gerard D Schellenberg; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski; Vivianna M Van Deerlin; Murray Grossman Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Alberto Lleó; David J Irwin; Ignacio Illán-Gala; Corey T McMillan; David A Wolk; Edward B Lee; Vivianna M Van Deerlin; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski; Murray Grossman Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: David J Irwin; Corey T McMillan; EunRan Suh; John Powers; Katya Rascovsky; Elisabeth M Wood; Jon B Toledo; Steven E Arnold; Virginia M-Y Lee; Vivianna M Van Deerlin; John Q Trojanowski; Murray Grossman Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 9.910