CD34+ Hematopoietic Stem Cell Counts in Alzheimer's Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.9 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) Pub Date : 2025-01-21 DOI:10.3390/diseases13020025

Vinay Suresh, Malavika Rudrakumar, Anmol Kaur, Victor Ghosh, Poorvikha Satish, Amogh Verma, Priyanka Roy, Mainak Bardhan

{"title":"CD34+ Hematopoietic Stem Cell Counts in Alzheimer's Disease: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Vinay Suresh, Malavika Rudrakumar, Anmol Kaur, Victor Ghosh, Poorvikha Satish, Amogh Verma, Priyanka Roy, Mainak Bardhan","doi":"10.3390/diseases13020025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To assess the presence and quantity of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) through a meta-analysis.Methods: A systematic search of the databases identified the observational and interventional studies reporting baseline CD34+ cell counts in AD patients. The data on mean counts and the measures of variation were extracted. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using common and random effects models to compare the CD34+ cell counts between the AD patients and controls. Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using tau2, tau, and I2 statistics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the ROBINS-I tool.Patients: Five studies were included, comprising four observational studies and one open-label trial, with a total of 271 participants (139 AD patients and 132 controls).Results: The meta-analysis indicated an increase in CD34+ cell counts of the AD patients when compared to the controls. The common effects model showed a moderate SMD of 0.2964 (95% CI:0.0490-0.5437). However, the random effects model yielded a non-significant SMD of 0.2326 (95% CI: -0.4832-0.9484). Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 87.1%, p < 0.0001).Conclusion: AD patients may exhibit higher circulating CD34+ cell counts than the controls, but substantial heterogeneity and potential biases limit definitive conclusions.","PeriodicalId":72832,"journal":{"name":"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diseases13020025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the presence and quantity of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) through a meta-analysis.

Methods: A systematic search of the databases identified the observational and interventional studies reporting baseline CD34+ cell counts in AD patients. The data on mean counts and the measures of variation were extracted. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using common and random effects models to compare the CD34+ cell counts between the AD patients and controls. Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using tau², tau, and I² statistics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the ROBINS-I tool.

Patients: Five studies were included, comprising four observational studies and one open-label trial, with a total of 271 participants (139 AD patients and 132 controls).

Results: The meta-analysis indicated an increase in CD34+ cell counts of the AD patients when compared to the controls. The common effects model showed a moderate SMD of 0.2964 (95% CI:0.0490-0.5437). However, the random effects model yielded a non-significant SMD of 0.2326 (95% CI: -0.4832-0.9484). Significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I² = 87.1%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: AD patients may exhibit higher circulating CD34+ cell counts than the controls, but substantial heterogeneity and potential biases limit definitive conclusions.

查看原文