Back

Combination of serum neurofilament light chain and serum cardiac troponin T as biomarkers improves diagnostic accuracy in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Lindenborn, P.; Fabian, R.; Grehl, T.; Nazlican, H.; Meyer, T.; Bernsen, S.; Weydt, P.

2025-05-23 neurology
10.1101/2025.05.22.25328178 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and cardiac troponin T (cTnT) as biomarkers for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and to determine whether their combination improves diagnostic accuracy. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 293 ALS patients, 47 neurodegenerative disease controls and 24 healthy controls. An independent validation cohort of 501 ALS patients was additionally analyzed to confirm reproducibility of the results. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed for sNfL, cTnT and their combination, and the area under the curve (AUC) was compared across groups. An ALS-specific cTnT cut-off of 8.35 ng/L was determined using the Youden index and applied in subgroup analyses, in which biomarker-negative ALS patients (normal sNfL and cTnT) were compared to biomarker-positive patients regarding disease duration and progression rate. ResultssNfL alone showed excellent performance in discriminating ALS patients from healthy controls (AUC = 0.951), but only moderate performance in discriminating neurodegenerative disease controls (AUC = 0.789). Combining sNfL and cTnT improved diagnostic accuracy for ALS over neurodegenerative disease controls, with a combined AUC of 0.866. Similar AUCs were observed in the validation cohort. Biomarker-negative ALS patients had a longer disease duration (73.0 vs. 18.0 months, p=0.0003) and a lower progression rate (0.19 vs. 0.70 points per months, p<0.0001) than biomarker-positive patients. InterpretationWhile sNfL alone performs well in distinguishing ALS from healthy controls, cTnT provides additional value in distinguishing ALS from disease controls. The combination of sNfL and cTnT improves diagnostic accuracy and may help identify clinically distinct ALS subgroups.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
14.7%
2
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
3
European Journal of Neurology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
4
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.2%
5
Journal of Neurology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.8%
7
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.6%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
9
Brain Communications
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
10
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
11
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
12
Neurology
44 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
13
Muscle & Nerve
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
Neurobiology of Disease
134 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
15
Movement Disorders
62 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
16
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.2%
18
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Acta Neuropathologica Communications
81 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
22
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%