MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414166733 · doi:10.1080/10408363.2025.2551648

Analytical considerations and clinical utility of plasma phosphorylated Tau217

2025· article· en· W4414166733 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Frykman

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerCerebrospinal fluidDiagnostic biomarkerPositron emission tomographyDiseaseLiquid biopsyDiagnostic testBiomarker discovery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blood-based biomarkers are an easily available and practical tool for Alzheimer's disease (AD) screening and diagnosis. Plasma phosphorylated Tau217 (p-tau217) is the front-runner candidate for AD diagnosis due to its strong correlation with core AD pathology determined either by cerebrospinal fluid biomarker (CSF) and positron emission tomography (PET) or postmortem examination. While plasma p-tau217 is firmly associated with AD pathology, it is crucial to evaluate its performance in distinguishing AD from mixed pathologies, as brain autopsies have shown the coexisting of AD pathology with other related types of dementia. Moreover, the measurement of AD biomarkers will be a crucial element in defining eligibility for disease-modifying treatment in clinical practice. Moreover, plasma p-tau217 is a highly efficacious biomarker in the early detection of Aβ pathology, making it a feasible test for AD screening in clinical practice. Several assays, including the ALZpath p-tau217 assay and the Fujirebio plasma p-tau217 assay, have been made commercially available for research use. A few studies analytically and clinically have validated these immunoassays as laboratory diagnostic tests for AD diagnosis and differentiating from non-AD neurodegenerative disorders in clinical practice.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory SciencesSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207