MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116857063 · doi:10.1002/alz70861_108520

Comparison of plasma biomarkers measured on a fully automated instrument versus CSF biomarkers for detecting Alzheimer’s disease pathology

2025· article· en· W7116857063 on OpenAlexaff
Noëlle Warmenhoven, Alexa Pichet Binette, Lyduine E. Collij, S Janelidze, Niklas Mattsson‐Carlgren, Rik Ossenkoppele, Pontus Tideman, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, Nicholas J. Ashton, H. Zetterberg, Kaj Blennow, Erik Stomrud, Gemma Salvadó, Oskar H. Hansson, S. Palmqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseBiomarkerPlasma levelsDiagnostic accuracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As fully automated instruments for plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are being implemented in specialist clinics, many are questioning whether they can be used interchangeably with, or as substitutes for, gold-standard cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. We aimed to compare fully automated Lumipulse plasma assays that are under FDA evaluation with FDA-approved CSF assays. METHOD: We included patients with subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia from the BioFINDER-Memory Clinic (n =122), BioFINDER-Primary Care (n =169) and ADNI (n =165) cohorts, in which plasma p -tau217 and plasma Aβ42 were measured with Lumipulse assays (Table 1). Plasma biomarkers were compared with CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 (Lumipulse) in the BioFINDER cohorts and CSF p -tau181/Aβ42 (Elecsys) in ADNI. Previously published one- and two-cutoff approaches were used for the biomarkers. The two-cutoff approach applies upper (positivity) and lower (negativity) cutoffs with intermediate cases being those with results in between the cutoffs (excluded in the analyses). The outcome was presence of AD pathology (visual read Aβ-PET). RESULT: Plasma p -tau217 identified AD pathology with AUCs of 0.95 (memory clinic), 0.89 (primary care) and 0.94 (ADNI). For p -tau217/Aβ42, AUCs of 0.95 (memory clinic), 0.90 (primary care), and 0.92 (ADNI) were observed (Figure 1B,E,H). CSF performed similar in BioFINDER (AUCs 0.91-0.92; all p >0.304) and better in ADNI (AUC 0.98, p =0.032). When applying one cutoff, plasma p -tau217 and p -tau217/Aβ42 had higher accuracies than CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 in BioFINDER-Memory Clinic (80-91%, all p <0.024) (Figure 1A), while performances were similar in BioFINDER-Primary Care (80-83%, all p >0.488, Figure 1D) and ADNI (88-92%, all p >0.152, Figure 1G). With two cutoffs, no significant differences between plasma p -tau217 (92%) or plasma p -tau217/Aβ42 (91%) and CSF biomarkers (89-93%) were observed in BioFINDER-Memory Clinic or ADNI (Figure 2A,G). In primary care, plasma p -tau217 (86%), but not p -tau217/Aβ42 (90%), had lower accuracy than CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 (92%, p =0.028; Figure 2E). CONCLUSION: Plasma p -tau217 and p -tau217/Aβ42 Lumipulse demonstrated similar or slightly inferior performance compared with FDA-approved CSF tests for detecting AD pathology across three cohorts, including primary care. Since these plasma assays are under FDA-review for AD diagnosis, the results are essential for validating their performance relative to CSF biomarkers. Additional comparisons will be presented at AAIC.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→