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.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Centiloid Scale in Amyloid PET Imaging: Current Role in Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis, Treatment Planning, and Monitoring During Anti-Amyloid Therapy: A Clinical Perspective.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Precision pathways: optimising amyloid PET for sustainable Alzheimer's disease care.Journal of neurology · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Article
- Substituting Blood-Based Biomarkers for Imaging Measures in Alzheimer's Disease Studies: Implications for Sample Size and Bias.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Complementary utility of plasma biomarkers and Aβ-PET for diagnosis, risk-stratification, and treatment monitoring in Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Review
- Identification of patients receiving amyloid-targeting therapies in observational studies using amyloid PET trajectories: Insights from LEADS.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.