Table 1.
Some promising biomarkers in diagnosis of AD.
| Category | Markers | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imaging | (1) Noninvasive | (1) Expensive | [12–14] | |
| CT, PET, PIB-PET, | (2) Provides structural and functional | (2) Requires experienced personnel | ||
| MRI | details of brain immediately | (3) The sensitivity and specificity to | ||
| (3) Can reveal disease progression | AD is not satisfactory | |||
|
| ||||
| Plasma | α 2-Macroglobulin, | (1) Noninvasive | (1) Less correlation to AD | [15–17] |
| Complement | (2) Samples are easily accessible | (2) Less sensitive and specific for AD | ||
| factor H, Aβ42 | diagnosis (due to epitope masking) | |||
|
| ||||
| CSF | Aβ42, t-tau, | (1) Can correlate AD directly | (1) Invasive, sample has to be collected | [10, 18] |
| p-tau p-tau/Aβ42, | (2) Highly sensitive and specific | by lumbar puncture | ||
| t-tau/Aβ42 | (3) Can detect AD progression | (2) Irreproducible diagnosis due to | ||
| sample storage and transportation | ||||