Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39702308›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2024

Analytical and clinical performance of eight Simoa

Anna L Wojdała, Jeroen Vanbrabant, Sherif Bayoumy, Daniel Antwi-Berko, Nathalie Le Bastard, Wiesje M van der Flier, Andreas Jeromin, Charlotte Lambrechts, Maxime Van Loo, Manu Vandijck and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Anna L WojdałaNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.l.wojdala@amsterdamumc.nl.
Jeroen VanbrabantADx NeuroSciences NV, Ghent, Belgium.
Sherif BayoumyNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniel Antwi-BerkoNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nathalie Le BastardFujirebio Europe NV, Ghent, Belgium.
Wiesje M van der FlierAlzheimer Center, Department of Neurology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Andreas JerominALZpath. Inc, Carlsbad, CA, USA.
Charlotte LambrechtsADx NeuroSciences NV, Ghent, Belgium.
Maxime Van LooADx NeuroSciences NV, Ghent, Belgium.
Manu VandijckFujirebio Europe NV, Ghent, Belgium.
Erik StoopsADx NeuroSciences NV, Ghent, Belgium.
Inge M W VerberkNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Charlotte E TeunissenNeurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Neuroscience, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmong the Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers measured in blood, phosphorylated forms of tau (p-tau) have been shown to exhibit a particularly high diagnostic potential. Here, we performed a comprehensive method comparison study, followed by evaluation of the diagnostic performance of eight recent plasma p-tau immunoassays targeting different tau phosphorylation sites, different tau fragments, and that are measured by two distinct platforms.

methodsWe enrolled a cohort of 40 patients with AD at the stage of dementia (AD-dem) characterized by positive CSF A + T + profile, and a control group of 40 cognitively healthy participants (Control), to conduct a comprehensive method comparison for three plasma p-tau181 and five plasma p-tau217 assays run on the Simoa

resultsWe found a strong, positive correlation between all the measurements. Fixed and/or proportional bias was observed for each of compared p-tau181 assay pairs or p-tau217 assay pairs. While both plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217 levels were significantly increased in AD-dem vs. Control groups as measured by all assays, higher median concentration AD-dem/Control fold change and AUC values were observed for p-tau217 (assays range: fold change 3.72-6.74, AUC 0.916-0.956) compared with p-tau181 (assays range 1.81-2.94, AUC 0.829-0.909), independently of the platform used. No significant differences were observed between diagnostic performance of p-tau181 assays or p-tau217 assays targeting tau N-terminus or mid-region.

conclusionsAlthough all plasma p-tau measurements enabled discrimination between clinical groups, p-tau217 assays showed the highest robustness, independently of the pan-tau detector antibody targeting N-terminal or mid-region, and independently of the platform used. Considering the observed method disagreement in measured absolute concentrations, we stress the need for development of certified reference material, harmonizing measurements across different platforms.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseBiomarkerstau ProteinsAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansImmunoassayMaleMiddle AgedPhosphorylationSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersMAPT protein, humantau ProteinsAlzheimer’s diseaseBiomarkersBloodImmunoassayLumipulsePlasmaP-tau181P-tau217Simoa

Identifiers

PMID39702308
PMCPMC11660642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.