Methods to Discover and Validate Biofluid-Based Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Dementias

Neurodegenerative dementias are progressive diseases that cause neuronal network breakdown in different brain regions often because of accumulation of misfolded proteins in the brain extracellular matrix, such as amyloids or inside neurons or other cell types of the brain. Several diagnostic protein biomarkers in body fluids are being used and implemented, such as for Alzheimer's disease. However, there is still a lack of biomarkers for co-pathologies and other causes of dementia. Such biofluid-based biomarkers enable precision medicine approaches for diagnosis and treatment, allow to learn more about underlying disease processes, and facilitate the development of patient inclusion and evaluation tools in clinical trials. When designing studies to discover novel biofluid-based biomarkers, choice of technology is an important starting point. But there are so many technologies to choose among. To address this, we here review the technologies that are currently available in research settings and, in some cases, in clinical laboratory practice. This presents a form of lexicon on each technology addressing its use in research and clinics, its strengths and limitations, and a future perspective.

Multi-Omics Interdisciplinary Research Integration to Accelerate Dementia Biomarker Development (MIRIADE)

Proteomics studies have shown differential expression of numerous proteins in dementias but have rarely led to novel biomarker tests for clinical use. The Marie Curie MIRIADE project is designed to experimentally evaluate development strategies to accelerate the validation and ultimate implementation of novel biomarkers in clinical practice, using proteomics-based biomarker development for main dementias as experimental case studies. We address several knowledge gaps that have been identified in the field. First, there is the technology-translation gap of different technologies for the discovery (e.g., mass spectrometry) and the large-scale validation (e.g., immunoassays) of biomarkers. In addition, there is a limited understanding of conformational states of biomarker proteins in different matrices, which affect the selection of reagents for assay development. In this review, we aim to understand the decisions taken in the initial steps of biomarker development, which is done via an interim narrative update of the work of each ESR subproject. The results describe the decision process to shortlist biomarkers from a proteomics to develop immunoassays or mass spectrometry assays for Alzheimer's disease, Lewy body dementia, and frontotemporal dementia. In addition, we explain the approach to prepare the market implementation of novel biomarkers and assays. Moreover, we describe the development of computational protein state and interaction prediction models to support biomarker development, such as the prediction of epitopes. Lastly, we reflect upon activities involved in the biomarker development process to deduce a best-practice roadmap for biomarker development.

Unpacking the black box of improvement

During the Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565—‘Better Health Care: How do we learn about improvement?’, participants discussed the need to unpack the ‘black box’ of improvement. The ‘black box’ refers to the fact that when quality improvement interventions are described or evaluated, there is a tendency to assume a simple, linear path between the intervention and the outcomes it yields. It is also assumed that it is enough to evaluate the results without understanding the process of by which the improvement took place. However, quality improvement interventions are complex, nonlinear and evolve in response to local settings. To accurately assess the effectiveness of quality improvement and disseminate the learning, there must be a greater understanding of the complexity of quality improvement work. To remain consistent with the language used in Salzburg, we refer to this as ‘unpacking the black box’ of improvement. To illustrate the complexity of improvement, this article introduces four quality improvement case studies. In unpacking the black box, we present and demonstrate how Cynefin framework from complexity theory can be used to categorize and evaluate quality improvement interventions. Many quality improvement projects are implemented in complex contexts, necessitating an approach defined as ‘probe-sense-respond’. In this approach, teams experiment, learn and adapt their changes to their local setting. Quality improvement professionals intuitively use the probe-sense-respond approach in their work but document and evaluate their projects using language for ‘simple’ or ‘complicated’ contexts, rather than the ‘complex’ contexts in which they work. As a result, evaluations tend to ask ‘How can we attribute outcomes to the intervention?’, rather than ‘What were the adaptations that took place?’. By unpacking the black box of improvement, improvers can more accurately document and describe their interventions, allowing evaluators to ask the right questions and more adequately evaluate quality improvement interventions.