ReviewFrontiers in neurology2025
Evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of core biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Plasma Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease Across the Continuum: A Systematic Review of SIMOA-Based Studies.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Redefining Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Using AI-Driven Brain Volumetry.Biomedicines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Core cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers serve as pivotal diagnostic indicators for Alzheimer's disease, yet their diagnostic efficacy varies substantially across different markers. This study employs a Bayesian meta-analytic approach to comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of individual core CSF biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, and other databases for English-language studies published between January 2013 and April 2025. Following predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, eligible studies were selected for methodological quality assessment using standardized tools. Data extraction was subsequently performed, and statistical analyses were conducted using Meta-DiSc 1.4, Stata 15.1, and R 4.3.2 software packages. Results: This meta-analysis systematically evaluated the diagnostic value of eight core CSF biomarkers for AD, incorporating 23 eligible studies (2,187 AD cases and 2,019 non-AD). Key findings revealed: (1) Among individual biomarkers, p-tau217 demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, with sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.97), specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.98), area under the curve (AUC) of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97-1.00), and an exceptionally high diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 395.28 (95% CI: 92.17-1,305.79), all parameters being significantly better than other biomarkers ( Conclusion: This study demonstrates that among core CSF biomarkers for AD, p-tau217 exhibits the most outstanding diagnostic performance as a standalone biomarker, while the Aβ42/p-tau181 ratio shows superior diagnostic efficacy among biomarker combinations. Based on current evidence-based medical data, we recommend the combined use of p-tau217 and Aβ42/p-tau181 ratio as first-line core CSF biomarker panel for AD diagnosis, providing reliable laboratory evidence for early screening and differential diagnosis of AD in clinical practice.
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.