ArticleNPJ dementia2025
Independent validation of the PrecivityAD2™ blood test to identify presence or absence of brain amyloid pathology in individuals with cognitive impairment.
Article in NPJ dementia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of an Alzheimer's Disease Blood Test: Adoption Experience by Memory Care Specialists in a Multi-Center Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of a multi-analyte algorithmic immunoassay blood test with immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry for the detection of amyloid pathology.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
- Uncovering barriers to early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: a European perspective.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The diagnostic performance of the Amyloid Probability Score 2 (APS2; the algorithmic result of the PrecivityAD2™ blood test) was originally trained and validated in two cohorts of cognitively impaired (CI) individuals and is in clinical use. Here, we further test the repeatability and reliability of the prespecified APS2 algorithm and cut point in an independent cohort. APS2 diagnostic performance was determined using amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) as the reference standard. Concordance with amyloid PET was high (AUC-ROC 0.95 (95% CI): 0.93-0.98); 54% of participants had a positive APS2. The previously validated APS2 cut point yielded an overall accuracy of 91% (95% CI: 86-94%), sensitivity 90% (95% CI: 83-94%) and specificity 92% (95% CI: 84-96%). Our findings demonstrate that the prespecified APS2 algorithm and cut point are repeatable, reliable, robust, accurate, and generalizable for identifying brain beta-amyloid pathology in patients with cognitive impairment and being evaluated in a clinical care setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.