To date, a large and increasing number of monocenter studies and an increasing number of more or less controlled multicenter trials have investigated biomarker candidates for AD. Potential diagnostic biomarkers are measured against the criteria established by expert consensus conferences.1,2 These guidelines specify that a biomarker should reflect a neuropathological characteristic of AD and should be validated in patients with
a neuropathological diagnosis. The sensitivity Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of the “ideal” biomarker to detect AD should be at least 85%. Its specificity to differentiate AD patients from controls of the same age and from patients with other forms of dementia should be at least 75%. In clinically diagnosed populations, a higher level of specificity for biomarkers will not be able to be achieved for methodological reasons, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical as even the gold standard, the clinical diagnostic criteria, cannot be absolutely specific. The same applies to controls of the same age, as some of them might have undetected incipient preclinical AD.3 In large groups, this will inevitably affect the specificity of the results Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of even the best
mechanistic biomarker. In contrast to early detection of pathology, application of biomarkers to map treatment effects is still at an earlystage. An overview of the current literature provides an initial indication that treatment effects may indeed be reflected at the biomarker level. However, results are still inconclusive. In several cases, biomarker studies have led to unexpected results
that opened up new questions; the answers to these INCB024360 research buy questions will probably enhance our understanding of the pathophysiology Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of AD in the future. Further studies on core candidate markers will probably show that some presumed pathomechanisms of marker regulation and expression are more differentiated and complex than currently supposed. This paper will present an overview of the most promising findings relating to biomarkers which Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical can be assessed in vivo. A particular focus will be on biomarkers that have already been evaluated Chlormezanone on clinical samples (eg, using structural and functional imaging methods or analysis of cerebrospinal fluid and plasma/serum). At the end of the article, a short discussion on the regulatory and industrial perspective of the topic will also be provided. Biomarkers derived from neuroimaging Structural magnetic resonance imaging (morphometry) Hippocampus volumetry High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) determines structural changes in the brain in vivo. Significant atrophy of the hippocampal formation, entorhinal cortex, and parahippocampal gyrus can be demonstrated by MRI, even in the preclinical stages of AD, and predict later conversion to AD with about 80% accuracy/4-6 Manual volumetric methods are currently the gold standard to determine the hippocampal volume, but they are time-intensive.