Fig. 3

GFAP demonstrates less utility as a susceptibility/risk biomarker compared to NfL. a, b Comparison of baseline GFAP (a) or NfL (b) concentrations in presymptomatic carriers who phenoconverted to controls or to presymptomatic carriers who remained asymptomatic for at least one year. c, d Comparison of baseline GFAP (c) or NfL (d) concentrations in controls to presymptomatic individuals with either a C9orf72, GRN or MAPT mutation. e, f Comparison of GFAP (e) or NfL (f) rates of change in presymptomatic carriers who phenoconverted to controls or to presymptomatic carriers who remained asymptomatic for at least one year. g, h Comparison of GFAP (g) or NfL (h) rates of change in controls to presymptomatic individuals with either a C9orf72, GRN or MAPT mutation. The number of participants (n) is shown. p values are from analysis adjusted for age and sex. p < 0.0167 is considered statistically significant. ****p < 0.0001, **p < 0.01 and *p = 0.013 (comparison to controls); ^##p < 0.01 (comparison of phenoconverters to non-converters). In panels a-d, horizontal bars represent median GFAP or NfL concentrations, which are shown on the base 2 logarithm scale. In panels e–h, rates of GFAP or NfL change are shown with box and whiskers plots representing minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum values. See Table S16 relating to panels a, b, e and f, and Table S18 relating to panels c, d, g and h