Validation of the LUMIPULSE automated immunoassay for the measurement of core AD biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The core cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers; total tau (tTau), phospho-tau (pTau), amyloid β 1-42 (Aβ 1-42), and the Aβ 1-42/Aβ 1-40 ratio have transformed Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and are today increasingly used in clinical routine laboratories as diagnostic tools. Fully automated immunoassay instruments with ready-to-use assay kits and calibrators has simplified their analysis and improved reproducibility of measurements. We evaluated the analytical performance of the fully automated immunoassay instrument LUMIPULSE G (Fujirebio) for measurement of the four core AD CSF biomarkers and determined cutpoints for AD diagnosis. METHODS: Comparison of the LUMIPULSE G assays was performed with the established INNOTEST ELISAs (Fujirebio) for hTau Ag, pTau 181, β-amyloid 1-42, and with V-PLEX Plus Aβ Peptide Panel 1 (6E10) (Meso Scale Discovery) for Aβ 1-42/Aβ 1-40, as well as with a LC-MS reference method for Aβ 1-42. Intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility was evaluated for all assays. Clinical cutpoints for Aβ 1-42, tTau, and pTau was determined by analysis of three cohorts of clinically diagnosed patients, comprising 651 CSF samples. For the Aβ 1-42/Aβ 1-40 ratio, the cutpoint was determined by mixture model analysis of 2,782 CSF samples. RESULTS: The LUMIPULSE G assays showed strong correlation to all other immunoassays (r>0.93 for all assays). The repeatability (intra-laboratory) CVs ranged between 2.0 and 5.6%, with the highest variation observed for β-amyloid 1-40. The reproducibility (inter-laboratory) CVs ranged between 2.1 and 6.5%, with the highest variation observed for β-amyloid 1-42. The clinical cutpoints for AD were determined to be 409 ng/L for total tau, 50.2 ng/L for pTau 181, 526 ng/L for β-amyloid 1-42, and 0.072 for the Aβ 1-42/Aβ 1-40 ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the LUMIPULSE G assays for the CSF AD biomarkers are fit for purpose in clinical laboratory practice. Further, they corroborate earlier presented reference limits for the biomarkers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".