Back

Validation of remote collection and quantification of blood Neurofilament light in neurological diseases.

Coleman, A.; Touze, A.; Farag, M.; Pengo, M.; Murphy, M. J.; Hassan, Y.; Thackeray, O.; Fayer, K.; Field, S.; Nakajima, M.; Broom, E. L.; Huxford, B.; Donkor, N.; Camboe, E.; Dey, K. C.; Zirra, A.; Ahmed, A.; Gameiro Costa, A. R.; Sorrell, H.; Zampedri, L.; Lombardi, V.; Wade, C.; Apap Mangion, S.; Fneich, B.; Heslegrave, A.; Zetterberg, H.; Noyce, A.; Malaspina, A.; Chataway, J.; Tabrizi, S. J.; Byrne, L. M.

2023-12-04 neurology
10.1101/2023.12.04.23299336 medRxiv
Show abstract

Promising blood-based biomarkers of neuropathology have emerged with potential for therapeutic development and disease monitoring. However, these tools will require specialist tertiary services for integration into clinical management. Remote sampling for biomarker assessment could ease the burden of in-person clinical visits for such tests and allow for frequent sampling. Here we evaluated a capillary finger-prick collection for remote quantification of blood neurofilament light (NfL), a common blood-based biomarker evident in various neurological disorders, and other exploratory markers of neuronal injury and neuroinflammation (GFAP, tau). Matched samples from venepuncture and finger-prick were collected and processed into plasma and/or serum to directly compare NfL levels across four different neurological conditions (HD, MS, ALS, PD). Two delayed processing conditions were compared, three- and seven-day delay, simulating ambient shipment. Capillary NfL and GFAP concentrations were equivalent to those in venous blood serum and plasma. Only NfL remained stable after seven-day processing delay. Capillary NfL replicated disease group differences displayed in venous blood. This data supports our finger-prick method for remote collection and quantification of NfL. With the widespread applications for NfL across the spectrum of neurological disorders, this has the potential to transform disease monitoring, prognosis, and therapeutic development within clinical practice and research. Graphical abstract: Figure 1

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.