Comparison of immunoassay- with mass spectrometry-derived p-tau quantification for the detection of Alzheimer’s disease pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Antibody-based immunoassays have enabled quantification of very low concentrations of phosphorylated tau (p-tau) protein forms in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), aiding in the diagnosis of AD. Mass spectrometry enables absolute quantification of multiple p-tau variants within a single run. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of mass spectrometry assessments of p-tau181, p-tau217 and p-tau231 with established immunoassay techniques. Methods We measured p-tau181, p-tau217 and p-tau231 concentrations in CSF from 173 participants from the TRIAD cohort and 394 participants from the BioFINDER-2 cohort using both mass spectrometry and immunoassay methods. All subjects were clinically evaluated by dementia specialists and had amyloid-PET and tau-PET assessments. Bland–Altman analyses evaluated the agreement between immunoassay and mass spectrometry p-tau181, p-tau217 and p-tau231. P-tau associations with amyloid-PET and tau-PET uptake were also compared. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses compared the performance of mass spectrometry and immunoassays p-tau concentrations to identify amyloid-PET positivity. Results Mass spectrometry and immunoassays of p-tau217 were highly comparable in terms of diagnostic performance, between-group effect sizes and associations with PET biomarkers. In contrast, p-tau181 and p-tau231 concentrations measured using antibody-free mass spectrometry had lower performance compared with immunoassays. Conclusions Our results suggest that while similar overall, immunoassay-based p-tau biomarkers are slightly superior to antibody-free mass spectrometry-based p-tau biomarkers. Future work is needed to determine whether the potential to evaluate multiple biomarkers within a single run offsets the slightly lower performance of antibody-free mass spectrometry-based p-tau quantification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".