ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2025
Validation of the robustness of blood-based biomarkers for predicting amyloid-β positivity in Chinese populations.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of plasma p-tau217 against amyloid PET: A meta-analysis of technical platform variability and ratio versus single marker comparisons.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Plasma neurofilament light for early differentiation of multiple system atrophy from Parkinson disease.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Advancing Alzheimer's disease research in China: insights, innovations, and future directions from the chinese preclinical Alzheimer's disease study (CPAS).Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- Translating blood-based biomarkers into Alzheimer's disease clinical practice: screening, diagnosis, and longitudinal monitoring.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Blood-based biomarkers (BBBs) of Alzheimer's disease (AD) provide a promising, minimally invasive alternative for detecting cerebral amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology. However, a lack of robust validation across diverse platforms and populations has hindered their broader clinical adoption. Objective: This study aimed to cross-platform validation of the robustness of BBBs for predicting Aβ positivity in a Chinese population. Methods: The whole cohort ( Results: The BBBs of Aβ42/40, p-tau181, p-tau217, GFAP, and NfL have demonstrated remarkable robustness in identifying Aβ positivity within the Chinese population, as evidenced by both LiCA and Simoa assays. Among these markers, p-tau217 has emerged as the most accurate, performing robustness in both the whole cohort and cognitively normal individuals. Utilizing a dual-threshold approach for p-tau217, only 16% of samples fell into the intermediate range, thus requiring additional Aβ PET testing. Conclusion: Blood-based biomarkers have demonstrated good robustness for predicting Aβ pathology in the Chinese population, with plasma p-tau217 standing out as the most promising marker for early detection of AD-related changes.
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.