Neurofilament light and glial fibrillary acidic protein in mood and anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
============================================================================================================================

* Matthew JY Kang
* Jasleen Grewal
* Dhamidhu Eratne
* Charles Malpas
* Wei-Hsuan Chiu
* Kasper Katisko
* Eino Solje
* Alexander F Santillo
* Philip B. Mitchell
* Malcolm Hopwood
* Dennis Velakoulis

## **Abstract**

**Background** Neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are biomarkers of neuronal injury measurable in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood. Despite their potential as diagnostic tests for neurodegenerative disorders, it is unclear how they behave in mood and anxiety disorders. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether NfL and GFAP concentrations were altered in adults with mood and anxiety disorders compared to healthy controls.

**Methods** The study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023434617). We followed the PRISMA guidelines, searched PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase up to the 31/05/2023, and assessed relevant studies and their risk of bias. The primary outcome was the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of NfL and GFAP concentrations, which was pooled using a random-effects model adopting the restricted maximum likelihood estimator.

**Results** Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria, comprising of 2327 individuals (695 major depression, 502 bipolar disorder, and 1130 controls). When we compared people with major depression and controls, there was no difference in NfL (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI: -0.10, 0.68) nor GFAP (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI: -0.74, 1.68). In people with bipolar disorder, NfL was significantly elevated compared to controls (SMD = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.99). However, the subgroup analysis including more sensitive assay kits (blood Simoa and CSF ELISA), found no significant difference (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.85). Only one study studied GFAP in bipolar disorder. No studies explored NfL nor GFAP concentrations in anxiety disorders.

**Discussion** We found that NfL and GFAP concentrations were not elevated in depression. In bipolar disorder, NfL concentration was elevated, though not in the sensitivity analysis. Our study informs clinicians about how to interpret these emerging biomarkers in determining whether a person’s symptoms are caused by a neurodegenerative or mood disorder.

## Introduction

Recent developments in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in neurological conditions have offered exciting prospects for enhancing diagnostic assessments. Neurofilament light chain (NfL), a cytoskeletal protein of neurons, has emerged as a sensitive biomarker for assessing neuronal injury (1). Neurodegenerative processes lead to the release of NfL into the CSF, which subsequently pass through to the bloodstream at lower concentrations (2). Although initial studies were limited to measuring NfL in CSF, technological advances have facilitated precise quantification of NfL in blood (3). In particular, blood NfL measured using single- molecule array digital immunoassay (Simoa) correlate well with CSF NfL (4). Numerous studies have shown that NfL, in both CSF and blood, is a valuable marker for diagnosing, assessing disease severity, and predicting prognosis in a diverse range of neurodegenerative conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (5–7). NfL can also distinguish neurodegenerative disorders from primary psychiatric disorders within memory clinics and neuropsychiatry services (8–10). More recently, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), a component of glial cell cytoskeleton, has emerged as a sensitive measure of astrogliosis and neuroinflammation, demonstrating superior prognostic accuracy to NfL in multiple sclerosis (11,12).

Given the potential clinical utility of these biomarkers in determining whether an individual’s undifferentiated presentation with psychiatric, cognitive and/or neurological symptoms is due to a neurological or a psychiatric cause, it is crucial to understand how NfL or GFAP behave in primary mood or anxiety disorders. If NfL and GFAP levels remain within normal ranges in primary mood and anxiety disorders, which are the two most prevalent mental disorders (13), such findings would support the use of these biomarkers in distinguishing neurodegenerative conditions at diagnostic assessments. Conversely, should they be elevated in primary mood and anxiety disorders, this may provide insights into their neurobiological underpinnings.

One of the earliest investigations into NfL and GFAP in psychiatric disorders involved a cohort of elderly women who remained dementia-free during a 10-year follow-up period (14). Those with major depression exhibited significantly higher concentrations of baseline CSF NfL compared to the rest of the group (major depression mean: 427 ± 186 vs control mean: 277 ± 186 ng/L), whilst there was no difference in the GFAP concentrations (major depression mean: 946 ± 196 vs control: 887 ± 308 ng/L). Subsequent studies comparing blood NfL and GFAP in mood disorders to healthy controls have yielded mixed findings, either finding elevated concentrations in mood disorders (15–17), or no difference (6,18).

More recent studies have examined the relationship between NfL or GFAP with clinical outcomes in mood disorders. The concentration of GFAP was higher in people with major depression and correlated with the severity of depressive symptoms (17). NfL was found to be negatively correlated with cognitive processing speed in people with major depression compared to healthy controls (19). Several theories have been proposed to explain why NfL or GFAP may be elevated in mood disorders, including astroglia dysfunction (17), vascular pathology (14), and neuroinflammatory processes (20).

Given these conflicting findings in this area of major clinical and scientific importance, we have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies investigating NfL and GFAP concentrations in people with mood (depression and bipolar disorder) and anxiety disorders compared to healthy controls. Secondly, we sought to identify any associations between the severity of mood and anxiety disorders with NfL and GFAP.

## Methods

This systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (21). The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023434617).

### Eligibility criteria

All eligible studies met the following criteria: (1) adult patients diagnosed with either mood (depression and bipolar disorder) or anxiety disorder according to DSM or ICD (22–25); and (2) measured NfL or GFAP in plasma, serum or CSF measured by Simoa, electrochemiluminescence method (ECL) or enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Case-series, meeting abstracts, reviews and meta-analyses were excluded. For articles with overlapped samples, only the report with largest sample size was included.

Exclusions criteria were: (1) mood or anxiety disorders due to general medical conditions including dementia and stroke, and (2) co-morbid neurological disorders including multiple sclerosis and dementia.

### Search strategy

Electronic searches were conducted *via* the Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE(OVID), Embase and PsycINFO from the inception of the databases through to 31st May 2023. The search terms included (“neurofilament light*” OR “NfL”) AND (“glial fibrillary acidic protein*” OR “GFAP”) AND (“depressi*” OR ”bipolar*” OR “anxiet*” OR “mood disorder*”). Studies were required to be in English. We have described our full search strategy in the supplementary file.

### Study Selection and Data Collection

We used Cochrane’s Covidence, a web-based systematic review manager, for study selection and quality analysis. One investigator (MK) screened the title and abstracts. Two investigators (MK and JG) independently reviewed the main reports and supplementary materials for their eligibility. We resolved discrepancies by consensus and involved a third senior investigator (MH) when required.

The primary outcome was the mean difference of NfL and GFAP in people with mood and anxiety disorders. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of NfL and GFAP was collected in the different cohorts. If this was not available, authors were contacted for the data. If the authors did not respond, the following methods were used to convert the data according to Cochrane Handbook guidelines (26): 1) median, interquartile ranges and minimum/maximum values were converted using an estimation formula (27,28), 2) mean and SD of subgroups (i.e. male and female) were combined using Cochrane’s formula (29), and 3) studies that only presented the results in plots were estimated using WebPlotDigitzer (30).

Our secondary outcomes were as follows: 1) mood state and severity (measured by a standardised rating scale), 2) duration of mood/anxiety disorder, and 3) cognitive impairment (measured by a standardised rating scale). We also collected known covariates of NfL and GFAP if they were reported, including age and weight (31).

### Quality of individual studies

Two investigators (MK and JG) independently assessed the quality of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment tool (32). NOS contains a total of 8 small items, and evaluates three aspects: selection, comparability and outcome. Studies were classified as “poor quality” (0-2 points), “average quality” (3-5 points), and “good or high quality” (6-9 points).

### Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.2 (2022-10-31) and the meta package (33). Meta-analyses were separately conducted for individual psychiatric diagnoses (i.e. major depression and bipolar disorder). For each diagnosis, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) of each biomarker (NfL and GFAP) between psychiatric disorders and controls to be able to pool the different types of assay kits. Of note, Random effects meta- analysis models, rather than fixed effects models, were selected a priori based on the theoretical absence of a consistent ‘true effect’ across the studies. The restricted maximum likelihood estimator was adopted. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (95% CI) and prediction intervals (PI) were calculated and visualised using forest plots. A PI quantifies the likely range in which a new study’s effect size will fall into, assuming that this future study is of a similar nature to those meta-analysed. We assumed a two-sided *P* < 0.05 to indicate statistical significance.

Where there were a sufficient number of studies, sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure any findings were consistent with the main analyses: type of biomarker analysis (i.e. CSF ELISA and serum/plasma Simoa; blood Simoa) and studies that used age-matched controls. We intended to analyse further subgroups including duration of psychiatric illness and age at diagnosis, however there was an insufficient number of studies.

We performed meta regression on the severity of mood symptoms as measured by the scales used in the study (i.e. Hamilton’s Depression Rating Scale; HDRS and Montgomery-Asberg

Depression Rating Scale; MADRS). We could not perform other meta regression analyses including variables such as cognition, duration of psychiatric illness and number of mood disorder episodes due to the limited numbers of studies.

As a post-hoc analysis to include studies (all of which used Simoa assay kits) that did not have any control groups, we used a robust mixed-means model to compare the mean concentration of NfL and GFAP between cases (depression or bipolar) and controls.

We assessed for publication bias using funnel plots of the effect sizes of mood disorders for NfL and GFAP. We performed meta-analyses only where there were at least five studies to ensure acceptable statistical power to make an inference. I2 and tau2 statistics were used to quantify between-study heterogeneity in the meta-analyses.

## Results

### Study selection

The systematic search identified 2,890 unique studies, of which 110 were selected for full-text review. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, as shown in Figure 1. Twelve studies investigated major depression, five bipolar disorder, four reported data on both, and no studies reported on other types of mood disorders nor anxiety disorders.

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F1)

Figure 1. 
PRISMA Diagram for study selection

The main reason that some full-text articles were excluded was due to studies either not reporting or collecting individual psychiatric diagnoses. A number of studies used a less rigorous process to collect diagnoses (self-report, file review and diagnosis based on a cut-off score from a mood rating scale) (34). Four studies had an insufficient sample size (n<10) (9,35,36). Some studies used indirect measures of NfL and GFAP, including extracellular vesicles, mRNA, IgG autoantibodies and urine (37–40).

### Study characteristics

Final sample data were obtained for 2327 individuals, of which 695 had major depression, 502 bipolar disorder, and 1130 healthy controls. Two studies (41,42) did not have a healthy control group, so were only included in the additional mixed-model meta-analyses. Seventeen studies analysed blood samples, three used CSF, and Knorr et al’s study (16) investigated both CSF and blood. The majority of the studies (75%) were published after 2020, reflecting the relatively recent availability of Simoa and ELISA technology to measure NfL and GFAP in blood. (Tables 1-2)

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/T1)

Table 1. Characteristics of studies included: NfL in major depression

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/T2)

Table 2. Characteristics of studies included: NfL in bipolar disorder

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/T3)

Table 3. Characteristics of studies included: GFAP in major depression and bipolar disorder

Although Ashton et al. (2021) reported that the sample size of their control (cognitively unimpaired and CSF amyloid-β negative) and depression groups were 130 and 37 respectively, this conflicted with their supplementary data source table that reported 115 and 51 values respectively. We chose to perform the meta-analysis with the latter values, as they matched the sex proportions reported in their main table. Bavato et al. (2021) drew on 295 healthy controls and referenced their earlier work (Barro et al., 2018, n=258) for the characteristics of the healthy controls, which is included in this meta-analysis instead.

### Quality of studies

The quality of studies was considered at least moderate across studies. The area of low quality was in the domain of comparability due to the inequalities in age and sex between study groups, as summarised in the supplementary eTable 1.

### Synthesis of results

#### Major depression

Neurofilament light chain

***All studies (Figure 2a):*** There was no significant difference in the concentration of NfL in people with major depression compared to healthy controls (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI: -0.10, 0.68). The prediction interval for this pooled mean difference was very wide (PI: -1.11, 1.69) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 90%; tau2 = 0.37). A regression-based Egger’s test did not show any evidence of small study effects (p-value = 0.35) though on visual inspection of the funnel plot (supplementary eFigure 1), Ashton et al’s study’s was an outlier (6). This study had a significant age difference between the depression and control groups (mean difference 31.7 years).

![Figure 2a.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2a.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F2)

Figure 2a. 
Forest plot of NfL in major depression (all studies)

*In the subgroup analysis of studies that included age-matched controls (Figure 2b),* NfL was significantly higher in major depression, though with a wide PI (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.77; PI: -0.61, 1.50). *The subgroup analysis model which only included data using CSF ELISA and blood Simoa (Figure 2c)*, which are more accurate measures of NfL (2,4), found no significant difference (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.53, 0.47). The heterogeneity for both subgroup analysis models were high (I2 = 79%, tau2 = 0.17 and I2 = 57%, tau2 = 0.07 respectively).

![Figure 2b.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 2b.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F3)

Figure 2b. 
Forest plot of NfL in major depression (age-matched studies only)

Similarly, the subgroup analysis model including six age-matched studies that used CSF ELISA and Simoa also found no significant difference (SMD = 0.11 95% CI: -0.32, 0.55).

A random-effects meta-regression model which included all NfL studies suggested that mood severity did not influence NfL. In the subgroup mixed-model mean analysis of studies that only used blood Simoa, we found no significant difference in NfL levels.

Glial fibrillary acidic protein

GFAP (Figure 2d) was not significantly different between people with major depression and healthy controls (SMD = 0.47; 95% CI: -0.74, 1.68; PI: -3.09, 4.03), with significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 92%, tau2 = 0.53). There was insufficient data to perform additional meta-regressions including cognition and GFAP.

![Figure 2c.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 2c.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F4)

Figure 2c. 
Forest plot of NfL in major depression (Simoa and CSF studies only)

![Figure 2d.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 2d.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F5)

Figure 2d. 
Forest plot of GFAP in major depression

### Bipolar disorder

#### Neurofilament light chain

***All studies (Figure 3a):***The mean concentration of NfL in people with bipolar disorder was significantly higher than healthy control (SMD = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.99). However, the prediction interval for this pooled mean difference was wide (PI: -0.67, 1.82) with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 84.0%, tau2 = 0.24). As Knorr et al’s study (2022) reported both CSF ELISA and plasma Simoa samples, we performed a sensitivity analysis where we excluded the Simoa dataset, which found NfL was still significantly higher in bipolar disorder compared to healthy controls (SMD = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.14, 1.09), There was no asymmetry on the funnel plot (supplementary eFigure 1), and we could not use Egger’s test due to insufficient number of studies.

![Figure 3a.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F6.medium.gif)

[Figure 3a.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F6)

Figure 3a. 
Forest plot of NfL in bipolar disorder (all studies)

*The subgroup analysis model with age-matched studies (Figure 3b)* demonstrated significantly higher NfL in bipolar disorder (SMD = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.94; PI: -0.74, 1.74). For the subgroup analysis including only CSF ELISA and blood Simoa studies (Figure 3c), there was no significant difference in the mean concentration of NfL between bipolar disorder and healthy controls (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.85) with a wide prediction interval (PI: -0.80, 1.61).

![Figure 3b.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F7.medium.gif)

[Figure 3b.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F7)

Figure 3b. 
Forest plot of NfL in bipolar disorder (age-matched studies only)

![Figure 3c.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F8.medium.gif)

[Figure 3c.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F8)

Figure 3c. 
Forest plot of NfL in bipolar disorder (CSF and Simoa only)

Both models were heterogenous (I2 = 82.0%, tau2 = 0.22 and I2 = 81.8%, tau2 = 0.18 respectively). The subgroup analysis including six age-matched studies which used CSF ELISA and Simoa also found no significant difference in mean NfL between bipolar disorder and healthy controls. (SMD = 0.27 95% CI: -0.12, 0.65). We performed a subgroup mixed-model mean analysis of blood Simoa studies which showed no difference in NfL concentrations.

Glial fibrillary acidic protein

Only one study (17) studied GFAP in people with bipolar disorder (n=11), which found GFAP concentrations were similar in bipolar disorder compared to healthy controls (125 ± 50 vs 147 ± 61 pg/mL).

## Discussion

Our systematic review found that NfL and GFAP concentrations were not elevated in people with major depression compared to healthy controls. NfL was elevated in people with bipolar disorder, though the difference was no longer significant with subgroup analysis using more sensitive assay kits (CSF ELISA and blood Simoa). We identified no studies examining NfL or GFAP in people with anxiety disorders. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive systematic review of these biomarkers in people with primary mood and anxiety disorders.

Our findings align with the existing literature supporting the use of these biomarkers in the differentiation between mood disorders and neurodegenerative disorders (2,5,6). The complex relationship between mood disorders and neurodegenerative disorders, which can present with overlapping symptoms or co-occur, necessitates careful assessment. These findings provide reassurance to clinicians that people with primary mood disorders are unlikely to have very elevated concentrations of NfL and GFAP, as seen in the majority of neurodegenerative disorders where there often is marked elevation (for example, 1.86-fold in Alzheimer’s disease, 3.91-fold in frontotemporal dementia; 44,45).

In individuals with mood disorders, we noted variable instances where NfL concentration was elevated compared to healthy controls, indicating that neuronal injury or neuroinflammation might be present in a specific subset. The limitations of the available data, including detailed clinical and treatment information, prevented us from being able to investigate this further. We plan to conduct a ‘mega-analysis’ by pooling the raw data from the studies included. This approach will enable us to perform statistical adjustments for known covariates including as age, sex and weight/BMI, which were not possible in the meta-analysis. Moreover, identifying specific clusters of symptomatology that correlate with NfL/GFAP may offer valuable insights into the neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory phenotypes within mood disorders. In turn, opens a new paradigm of diagnosis and treatment for these patients based on biomarker data as well as reported symptoms, in line with the RDOC Framework (56).

Despite the widespread prevalence and burden of anxiety disorders (13), no prior research has explored NfL and GFAP in individuals with primary anxiety disorders. This is an important gap in the literature that this systematic review has identified for the use of NfL and GFAP in clinical practice.

The review process faced several limitations. The evidence was constrained by the quality and heterogeneity of included studies. Controls were not consistently age- and sex-matched (6,18), and some studies lacked control subjects (41,42,51). The limited number of studies and data precluded adequate adjustment for known covariates of NfL and GFAP, such as age, sex, weight/BMI, and renal function (2). This also hindered exploration of factors like mood disorder states (euthymic vs depressed) or effects of psychotropic medications (46). Furthermore, to harmonise the dataset, some of the meta-analyses relied on estimates derived from raw data, which may have introduced potential inaccuracies in the true estimates. Despite our attempts to include as many articles as possible by searching important databases, grey literature, as well as snowballing for other relevant articles, it is possible that some studies may have been inadvertently omitted.

### Conclusions

Our primary analysis indicated that NfL and GFAP levels were not significantly elevated in major depression, while in bipolar disorder, NfL was elevated compared to controls. Subgroup analysis using more sensitive assays revealed no notable differences. These findings suggest that NfL and GFAP elevations in mood disorders are minimal, contrasting with the large elevations in neurodegenerative disorders. This supports the use of these biomarkers in clinical settings to distinguish psychiatric from neurodegenerative causes. The practicality of blood-based biomarker measurements offers valuable diagnostic insights to answer the common clinical question faced by patients, carers and clinicians.

## Data Availability

Data available at reasonable request

## Funding and sponsors

The MiND Study is generously funded from the following bodies: 

*   2020-2024 NHMRC Ideas Grant GNT1185180: The Markers in Neuropsychiatric Disorders study.

*   MRFF

*   Ramsay Health Research Foundation Translation Challenge (2023-2024)

Matthew Kang is supported by the Research Training Program Scholarship (stipend) from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne with contributions from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the Ramsay Health Research Foundation Translation Challenge.

The funders had no role in the design or conduct of this study.

## Conflicts of interest

None from MK. PBM has received remuneration from Janssen (Australia) for advisory board membership and lectures in the last 3 years.

![Figure9](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F9.medium.gif)

[Figure9](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F9)

View this table:
[Table4](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/T4)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F10/graphic-14.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F10/graphic-14)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F10/graphic-15.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/F10/graphic-15)

View this table:
[Table5](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/09/2024.03.07.24303938/T5)

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Mu-Hong Chen, Dr Leila Simani, and Dr Wen-Yin Chen for their assistance in providing their published data separately to be included in the meta-analysis. We are also grateful for the correspondence from the following researchers who assisted us in clarifying questions about their published data: Dr Anja Fernqvist, Dr Sterre de Boer, Dr Naghmeh Nikkheslat, Prof Carmine Pariante, Dr. Pedro J. Serrano Castro, Dr Johanna Wallensten, Dr. Carol Van Hulle, Dr Mark Miller, Dr Daniel Alcolea, Dr. Suzanne Schindler, and Dr. Andrew Aschenbrenner.

## Footnotes

*   Email address: Matthew.kang1{at}unimelb.edu.au, Jas.grewal{at}alfred.org.au, deratne{at}unimelb.edu.au, charles.malpas{at}unimelb.edu.au, whchiu{at}student.unimelb.edu.au, kasper.katisko{at}uef.fi, eino.solje{at}uef.fi, alexander.frizell_santillo{at}med.lu.se, phil.mitchell{at}unsw.edu.au, mhopwood{at}unimelb.edu.au, Dennis.Velakoulis{at}mh.org.au

*   Received March 7, 2024.
*   Revision received March 7, 2024.
*   Accepted March 9, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Gaetani L, Blennow K, Calabresi P, Filippo MD, Parnetti L, Zetterberg H. Neurofilament light chain as a biomarker in neurological disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 Aug 1;90(8):870–81.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI5MC84Lzg3MCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzA5LzIwMjQuMDMuMDcuMjQzMDM5MzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

2.  2.Arslan B, Zetterberg H. Neurofilament light chain as neuronal injury marker – what is needed to facilitate implementation in clinical laboratory practice? Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM). 2023 Jun 27;61(7):1140–9.
    
    

3.  3.Khalil M, Teunissen CE, Otto M, Piehl F, Sormani MP, Gattringer T, et al. Neurofilaments as biomarkers in neurological disorders. Nature Reviews Neurology. 2018 Oct;14(10):577– 89.
    
    

4.  4.Alagaratnam J, von Widekind S, De Francesco D, Underwood J, Edison P, Winston A, et al. Correlation between CSF and blood neurofilament light chain protein: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Neurol Open. 2021 Jun 16;3(1):e000143.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qbm8iO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjMvMS9lMDAwMTQzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMDkvMjAyNC4wMy4wNy4yNDMwMzkzOC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

5.  5.Benkert P, Meier S, Schaedelin S, Manouchehrinia A, Yaldizli Ö, Maceski A, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain for individual prognostication of disease activity in people with multiple sclerosis: a retrospective modelling and validation study. The Lancet Neurology. 2022 Mar;21(3):246–57.
    
    

6.  6.Ashton NJ, Janelidze S, Al Khleifat A, Leuzy A, van der Ende EL, Karikari TK, et al. A multicentre validation study of the diagnostic value of plasma neurofilament light. Nat Commun. 2021 Jun 7;12(1):3400.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-021-23620-z&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

7.  7.Eratne D, Loi SM, Li QX, Stehmann C, Malpas CB, Santillo A, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light chain differentiates primary psychiatric disorders from rapidly progressive, Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal disorders in clinical settings. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2022;18(11):2218–33.
    
    

8.  8.Eratne D, Kang M, Malpas C, Simpson-Yap S, Lewis C, Dang C, et al. Plasma neurofilament light in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia compared to mood and psychotic disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2023 Jul 21;00048674231187312.
    
    

9.  9.Kang MJ, Eratne D, Dobson H, Malpas CB, Keem M, Lewis C, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light predicts longitudinal diagnostic change in patients with psychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders. Acta Neuropsychiatrica. 2023 Apr 28;1–36.
    
    

10. 10.Willemse EAJ, Scheltens P, Teunissen CE, Vijverberg EGB. A neurologist’s perspective on serum neurofilament light in the memory clinic: a prospective implementation study. Alz Res Therapy. 2021 Dec;13(1):101.
    
    

11. 11.Abdelhak A, Foschi M, Abu-Rumeileh S, Yue JK, D’Anna L, Huss A, et al. Blood GFAP as an emerging biomarker in brain and spinal cord disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2022 Mar;18(3):158–72.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41582-021-00616-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

12. 12.Meier S, Willemse EAJ, Schaedelin S, Oechtering J, Lorscheider J, Melie-Garcia L, et al. Serum Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein Compared With Neurofilament Light Chain as a Biomarker for Disease Progression in Multiple Sclerosis. JAMA Neurology. 2023 Mar 1;80(3):287–97.
    
    

13. 13.GBD 2019 Mental Disorders Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2022 Feb 1;9(2):137–50.
    
    

14. 14.Gudmundsson P, Skoog I, Waern M, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, Rosengren L, et al. Is there a CSF biomarker profile related to depression in elderly women? Psychiatry Research. 2010;176(2–3):174–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20132991&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

15. 15.Hviid CVB, Benros ME, Krogh J, Nordentoft M, Christensen SH. Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light chain in treatment-naïve patients with unipolar depression. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2023 Oct 1;338:341–8.
    
    

16. 16.Knorr U, Simonsen AH, Jensen CS, Zetterberg H, Blennow K, Akhøj M, et al. Alzheimer’s disease related biomarkers in bipolar disorder - A longitudinal one-year case-control study. J Affect Disord. 2022 Jan 15;297:623–33.
    
    

17. 17.Steinacker P, Al Shweiki MR, Oeckl P, Graf H, Ludolph AC, Schönfeldt-Lecuona C, et al. Glial fibrillary acidic protein as blood biomarker for differential diagnosis and severity of major depressive disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2021 Dec;144:54–8.
    
    

18. 18.Huang MC, Chen CH, Liu TH, Chung AN, Liu YL, Quednow BB, et al. Comorbidity of ketamine dependence with major depressive disorder increases the vulnerability to neuroaxonal pathology. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2023 Feb;158:360–4.
    
    

19. 19.Bavato F, Cathomas F, Klaus F, Gütter K, Barro C, Maceski A, et al. Altered neuroaxonal integrity in schizophrenia and major depressive disorder assessed with neurofilament light chain in serum. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2021 Aug;140:141–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.05.072&link_type=DOI) 

20. 20.Michel M, Fiebich BL, Kuzior H, Meixensberger S, Berger B, Maier S, et al. Increased GFAP concentrations in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with unipolar depression. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Jun;11(1):308.
    
    

21. 21.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;n71.
    
    

22. 22.American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. 4th ed., text revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000. 943 p.
    
    

23. 23.American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Association, editors. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. 5th ed. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. 947 p.
    
    

24. 24.Sheehan DV. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The Development and Validation of a Structured Diagnostic Psychiatric Interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;
    
    

25. 25.World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.) [Internet]. 2019. Available from: [https://icd.who.int/](https://icd.who.int/)
    
    

26. 26.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. 1st ed. Wiley; 2019 [cited 2024 Jan 12]. Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781119536604](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781119536604)
    
    

27. 27.Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1785– 805.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/0962280216669183&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

28. 28.Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2014 Dec 19;14(1):135.
    
    

29. 29.Higgins J, Li T, Deeks J. Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect [Internet]. Vol. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0. Cochrane; 2019 [cited 2023 Dec 24]. Available from: [https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-06](https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-06)
    
    

30. 30.Rohatgi A. WebPlotDigitizer [Internet]. Pacifica, California, USA; 2022 [cited 2023 Oct 31]. Available from: [https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer](https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer)
    
    

31. 31.Simrén J, Andreasson U, Gobom J, Suarez Calvet M, Borroni B, Gillberg C, et al. Establishment of reference values for plasma neurofilament light based on healthy individuals aged 5–90 years. Brain Communications. 2022 Jul 4;4(4):fcac174.
    
    

32. 32.Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle -Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2024 Jan 12]. Available from: [http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp](http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp)
    
    

33. 33.Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Mental Health. 2019 Nov;22(4):153–60.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoiZWJtZW50YWwiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMjIvNC8xNTMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMy8wOS8yMDI0LjAzLjA3LjI0MzAzOTM4LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

34. 34.Serrano-Castro PJ, Garzón-Maldonado FJ, Casado-Naranjo I, Ollero-Ortiz A, Mínguez- Castellanos A, Iglesias-Espinosa M, et al. The cognitive and psychiatric subacute impairment in severe Covid-19. Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 3;12(1):3563.
    
    

35. 35.Fernqvist A, Alexiou E, Zetterberg H, Howner K, Nilsson T, Andiné P. Plasma neurofilament light chain protein is not increased in forensic psychiatric populations: a pilot study. Front Psychiatry. 2023 May 4;14:1176266.
    
    

36. 36.Zachrisson OCG, Balldin J, Ekman R, Naesh O, Rosengren L, Ågren H, et al. No evident neuronal damage after electroconvulsive therapy. Psychiatry Research. 2000 Oct;96(2):157– 65.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0165-1781(00)00202-X&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11063788&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165260500007&link_type=ISI) 

37. 37.Ferensztajn-Rochowiak E, Tarnowski M, Samochowiec J, Michalak M, Ratajczak MZ, Rybakowski JK. Increased mRNA expression of peripheral glial cell markers in bipolar disorder: The effect of long-term lithium treatment. European Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016 Sep;26(9):1516–21.
    
    

38. 38.Poletaev AB, Morozov SG, Gnedenko BB, Zlunikin VM, Korzhenevskey DA. Serum Anti- SlOOb, Anti-GFAP and Anti-NGF Autoantibodies of IgG Class in Healthy Persons and Patients with Mental and Neurological Disorders. Autoimmunity. 2000 Jan;32(1):33–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3109/08916930008995985&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10958173&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

39. 39.van Engelen MPE, Heijst H, Willemse EAJ, Oudega ML, Vermunt L, Scheltens P, et al. Urine as matrix for analysis of neurofilament light chain is not suitable to distinguish frontotemporal dementia from psychiatric diseases. Brain Communications. 2023;5(2).
    
    

40. 40.Wallensten J, Mobarrez F, Åsberg M, Borg K, Beser A, Wilczek A, et al. Isoforms of soluble vascular endothelial growth factor in stress-related mental disorders: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 17;11(1):16693.
    
    

41. 41.Katisko K, Cajanus A, Jääskeläinen O, Kontkanen A, Hartikainen P, Korhonen VE, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain is a discriminative biomarker between frontotemporal lobar degeneration and primary psychiatric disorders. J Neurol. 2020 Jan;267(1):162–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00415-019-09567-8&link_type=DOI) 

42. 42.Katisko K, Cajanus A, Huber N, Jääskeläinen O, Kokkola T, Kärkkäinen V, et al. GFAP as a biomarker in frontotemporal dementia and primary psychiatric disorders: diagnostic and prognostic performance. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 Dec;92(12):1305–12.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiOTIvMTIvMTMwNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzA5LzIwMjQuMDMuMDcuMjQzMDM5MzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

43. 43.Bai YM, Liu YL, Kuo HW, Tsai SJ, Hsu JW, Huang KL, et al. Procollagen type 1 N- terminal propeptide, neurofilament light chain, proinflammatory cytokines, and cognitive function in bipolar and major depressive disorders: An exploratory study of brain– bone axis and systemic inflammation. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2023 Feb;158:403–8.
    
    

44. 44.Besse M, Belz M, Folsche T, Vogelgsang J, Methfessel I, Steinacker P, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain (NFL) remains unchanged during electroconvulsive therapy. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 7;21(2):148–54.
    
    

45. 45.Chen MH, Liu YL, Kuo HW, Tsai SJ, Hsu JW, Huang KL, et al. Neurofilament light chain is a novel biomarker for major depression and related executive dysfunction. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;25(2):99–105.
    
    

46. 46.Jiang L, Shen Z, Cheng Y, Lu J, He B, Xu J, et al. Elevated serum neurofilament levels in young first-episode and medication-naïve major depressive disorder patients with alterative white matter integrity. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. 2021 Nov;317:111351.
    
    

47. 47.Ramezani M, Simani L, Fard MG, Abbaszadeh F, Shadnia S. Increased levels of neurofilament light chain in suicide attempters’ serum. Translational Neuroscience. 2022 Aug 5;13(1):218–23.
    
    

48. 48.Wallensten J, Mobarrez F, Åsberg M, Borg K, Beser A, Wilczek A, et al. Plasma levels of S100B and neurofilament light chain protein in stress-related mental disorders. Sci Rep. 2022 May 18;12(1):8339.
    
    

49. 49.Aggio V, Fabbella L, Finardi A, Mazza EB, Colombo C, Falini A, et al. Neurofilaments light: Possible biomarker of brain modifications in bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2022 Mar;300:243–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.122&link_type=DOI) 

50. 50.Al Shweiki MR, Steinacker P, Oeckl P, Hengerer B, Danek A, Fassbender K, et al. Neurofilament light chain as a blood biomarker to differentiate psychiatric disorders from behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2019;113(February):137–40.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.03.019&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

51. 51.Chen WY, Huang MC, Chiu CC, Cheng YC, Kuo CJ, Chen PY, et al. The interactions between vitamin D and neurofilament light chain levels on cognitive domains in bipolar disorder. BJPsych open. 2022 Nov;8(6):e207.
    
    

52. 52.Rolstad S, Jakobsson J, Sellgren C, Ekman CJ, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, et al. Cognitive performance and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of neurodegeneration: a study of patients with bipolar disorder and healthy controls. PloS one. 2015;10(5):e0127100–e0127100.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0127100&link_type=DOI) 

53. 53.Barro C, Benkert P, Disanto G, Tsagkas C, Amann M, Naegelin Y, et al. Serum neurofilament as a predictor of disease worsening and brain and spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2018 Aug 1;141(8):2382–91.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/brain/awy154&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

54. 54.Bridel C, Van Wieringen WN, Zetterberg H, Tijms BM, Teunissen CE, Alvarez-Cermeño JC, et al. Diagnostic Value of Cerebrospinal Fluid Neurofilament Light Protein in Neurology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Neurology. 2019 Jun;76(9):1035–48.
    
    

55. 55.Eratne D, Keem M, Lewis C, Kang M, Walterfang M, Farrand S, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid neurofilament light chain differentiates behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia progressors from non-progressors. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2022 Nov;442:120439.
    
    

56. 56.Cuthbert BN. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Progress and Potential. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2022 Apr 1;31(2):107–14.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/09637214211051363&link_type=DOI) 

## eReferences

1.  1.Aggio V, Fabbella L, Finardi A, Mazza EB, Colombo C, Falini A, et al. Neurofilaments light: Possible biomarker of brain modifications in bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2022 Mar;300:243–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.122&link_type=DOI) 

2.  2.Al Shweiki MR, Steinacker P, Oeckl P, Hengerer B, Danek A, Fassbender K, et al. Neurofilament light chain as a blood biomarker to differentiate psychiatric disorders from behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2019;113(February):137–40.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.03.019&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

3.  3.Ashton NJ, Janelidze S, Al Khleifat A, Leuzy A, van der Ende EL, Karikari TK, et al. A multicentre validation study of the diagnostic value of plasma neurofilament light. Nat Commun. 2021 Jun 7;12(1):3400.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-021-23620-z&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

4.  4.Bai YM, Liu YL, Kuo HW, Tsai SJ, Hsu JW, Huang KL, et al. Procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide, neurofilament light chain, proinflammatory cytokines, and cognitive function in bipolar and major depressive disorders: An exploratory study of brain– bone axis and systemic inflammation. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2023 Feb;158:403–8.
    
    

5.  5.Bavato F, Cathomas F, Klaus F, Gütter K, Barro C, Maceski A, et al. Altered neuroaxonal integrity in schizophrenia and major depressive disorder assessed with neurofilament light chain in serum. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2021 Aug;140:141–8.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.05.072&link_type=DOI) 

6.  6.Besse M, Belz M, Folsche T, Vogelgsang J, Methfessel I, Steinacker P, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain (NFL) remains unchanged during electroconvulsive therapy. The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 7;21(2):148–54.
    
    

7.  7.Chen WY, Huang MC, Chiu CC, Cheng YC, Kuo CJ, Chen PY, et al. The interactions between vitamin D and neurofilament light chain levels on cognitive domains in bipolar disorder. BJPsych open. 2022 Nov;8(6):e207.
    
    

8.  8.Chen MH, Liu YL, Kuo HW, Tsai SJ, Hsu JW, Huang KL, et al. Neurofilament light chain is a novel biomarker for major depression and related executive dysfunction. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;25(2):99–105.
    
    

9.  9.Eratne D, Kang M, Malpas C, Simpson-Yap S, Lewis C, Dang C, et al. Plasma neurofilament light in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia compared to mood and psychotic disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2023 Jul 21;00048674231187312.
    
    

10. 10.Gudmundsson P, Skoog I, Waern M, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, Rosengren L, et al. Is there a CSF biomarker profile related to depression in elderly women? Psychiatry Research. 2010;176(2–3):174–8.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20132991&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2F2024.03.07.24303938.atom) 

11. 11.Huang MC, Chen CH, Liu TH, Chung AN, Liu YL, Quednow BB, et al. Comorbidity of ketamine dependence with major depressive disorder increases the vulnerability to neuroaxonal pathology. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2023 Feb;158:360–4.
    
    

12. 12.Hviid CVB, Benros ME, Krogh J, Nordentoft M, Christensen SH. Serum glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light chain in treatment-naïve patients with unipolar depression. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2023 Oct 1;338:341–8.
    
    

13. 13.Jiang L, Shen Z, Cheng Y, Lu J, He B, Xu J, et al. Elevated serum neurofilament levels in young first-episode and medication-naïve major depressive disorder patients with alterative white matter integrity. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. 2021 Nov;317:111351.
    
    

14. 14.Katisko K, Cajanus A, Jääskeläinen O, Kontkanen A, Hartikainen P, Korhonen VE, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain is a discriminative biomarker between frontotemporal lobar degeneration and primary psychiatric disorders. J Neurol. 2020 Jan;267(1):162–7.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00415-019-09567-8&link_type=DOI) 

15. 15.Katisko K, Cajanus A, Huber N, Jääskeläinen O, Kokkola T, Kärkkäinen V, et al. GFAP as a biomarker in frontotemporal dementia and primary psychiatric disorders: diagnostic and prognostic performance. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2021 Dec;92(12):1305–12.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiam5ucCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMDoiOTIvMTIvMTMwNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzA5LzIwMjQuMDMuMDcuMjQzMDM5MzguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

16. 16.Knorr U, Simonsen AH, Jensen CS, Zetterberg H, Blennow K, Akhøj M, et al. Alzheimer’s disease related biomarkers in bipolar disorder - A longitudinal one-year case-control study. J Affect Disord. 2022 Jan 15;297:623–33.
    
    

17. 17.Michel M, Fiebich BL, Kuzior H, Meixensberger S, Berger B, Maier S, et al. Increased GFAP concentrations in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with unipolar depression. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Jun;11(1):308.
    
    

18. 18.Ramezani M, Simani L, Fard MG, Abbaszadeh F, Shadnia S. Increased levels of neurofilament light chain in suicide attempters’ serum. Translational Neuroscience. 2022 Aug 5;13(1):218–23.
    
    

19. 19.Rolstad S, Jakobsson J, Sellgren C, Ekman CJ, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, et al. Cognitive performance and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of neurodegeneration: a study of patients with bipolar disorder and healthy controls. PloS one. 2015;10(5):e0127100– e0127100.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0127100&link_type=DOI) 

20. 20.Steinacker P, Al Shweiki MR, Oeckl P, Graf H, Ludolph AC, Schönfeldt-Lecuona C, et al. Glial fibrillary acidic protein as blood biomarker for differential diagnosis and severity of major depressive disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2021 Dec;144:54–8.
    
    

21. 21.Wallensten J, Mobarrez F, Åsberg M, Borg K, Beser A, Wilczek A, et al. Plasma levels of S100B and neurofilament light chain protein in stress-related mental disorders. Sci Rep. 2022 May 18;12(1):8339.