4.5 Article

Associations of sensory and motor function with blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration and Alzheimer's disease in midlife

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF AGING
卷 120, 期 -, 页码 177-188

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2022.08.008

关键词

Neurodegeneration; Dementia; Biomarker; Alzheimer?s disease

资金

  1. National Institute of Health
  2. National Institute on Aging [RF1AG066837, R01AG021917, RF1AG27161, P50AG033514, P30AG06715]
  3. Research to Prevent Blindness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sensory and motor changes in aging adults, especially hearing impairment and worse motor function, may be early markers of neurodegeneration and are associated with faster increases in serum NfL level.
Pathological biomarkers of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) change decades before clinical symp-toms. Common sensory and motor changes in aging adults may be early markers of neurodegeneration. We investigated if midlife sensory and motor functions in Beaver Dam Offspring Study (BOSS) participants (N = 1529) were associated with longitudinal changes in blood-based biomarkers of neurodegeneration (neurofilament light chain (NfL); total tau (TTau)) and AD (amyloid beta (A beta)). Mixed-effects models with baseline sensory and motor function as determinants and 10-year biomarker change as outcome were used. Participants with hearing impairment and worse motor function (among women) showed faster increases in NfL level over time (0.8% per year; 0.3% per year, respectively). There were no significant associations with TTau or A beta. We found consistent relationships between worse baseline hearing and motor function with a faster increase in neurodegeneration, specifically serum NfL level. Future studies with longer follow-up should determine if sensory and motor changes are more reflective of general neu-rodegeneration than AD-specific pathology and whether sensory and motor tests may be useful screening tools for neurodegeneration risk.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据