Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41088853›Full record

ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2025

Complementary utility of plasma biomarkers and Aβ-PET for diagnosis, risk-stratification, and treatment monitoring in Alzheimer's disease.

Lyduine E Collij, Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren, Shorena Janelidze, Rik Ossenkoppele, Oskar Hansson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Substituting blood-based biomarkers for imaging measures in Alzheimer's disease studies: implications for sample size and bias.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

5 authors.

Lyduine E CollijClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Niklas Mattsson-CarlgrenClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Shorena JanelidzeClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Rik OssenkoppeleClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Oskar HanssonClinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapid development of blood biomarkers (BBMs) related to amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD), the question arises whether these can replace the accepted reference standard, positron emission tomography (PET), for assessing Aβ burden. BBMs can differentiate Aβ status reliably in cognitively impaired patients, but two-threshold strategies to further improve their performance demonstrate the need for pathological confirmation by Aβ-PET in a non-negligible portion of individuals (∼10%-40%), especially in early-stage disease where BBM performance declines due to lower AD prevalence, reducing the test's positive predictive value (PPV) and increasing the risk for false-positives. This may be increasingly relevant in the future, considering the development of (very) early interventions against AD. Further, BBMs do not accurately reflect the actual Aβ load or change after immunotherapy. Consequently, there are clear remaining needs for Aβ-PET in several clinically important settings as (i) a confirmatory test and (ii) to determine treatment response. HIGHLIGHTS: When used as stand-alone tests, blood biomarkers (BBMs) demonstrate good sensitivity and specificity (84%-90%) relative to amyloid-β positron emission tomography (Aβ-PET). Two-threshold strategies improve BBM performance but require confirmatory testing by, for example, Aβ-PET in a non-negligible portion of patients that fall in an intermediate range or "gray-zone" (∼10%-40%). In early/preclinical populations, BBM performance declines due to lower AD prevalence, reducing the test's positive predictive value (PPV) and increases the gray-zone population. Currently available BBMs cannot reliably estimate Aβ-PET burden or track Aβ-plaque removal post-immunotherapy.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersClinical RelevancePositron-Emission TomographyHumansPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersamyloid‐PETblood biomarkersclinical routineclinical trials

Identifiers

PMID41088853
PMCPMC12521792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.