ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2026
Weekly fluctuations of plasma amyloid-beta in Alzheimer's disease: implications for biomarker reliability.
Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundAlzheimer’s Disease (AD), the most prevalent age-related dementia, is characterized by accumulation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) and hyperphosphorylated tau proteins within the brain. Accurate monitoring of AD progression is crucial for patient management and the evaluation of clinical trials but often involves invasive and expensive methods like cerebrospinal fluid analysis and PET scans. Consequently, minimally invasive plasma biomarkers such as the ratio of Aβ42 and Aβ40 are often used as endpoints in clinical research. This study investigates the variability in plasma Aβ levels on a micro-longitudinal scale to determine if they remain stable over short periods of time.
methodsAβ42 and Aβ40 peptides were quantified in plasma by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in a cohort of 73 AD patients with AD8 scores ≥ 3. Our cohort was 62% Black/African American and 38% White/Caucasian, 66% female and 34% male. Samples were collected weekly over a five-week micro-longitudinal study. We examined week-to-week Aβ peptide levels within-participant as well as between-patient variation. Impacts both of sex and race were examined as covariates.
resultsSignificant week-to-week fluctuations were observed in the levels of Aβ40, Aβ42, and Aβ42/Aβ40. We observed Aβ42/40 ratio to shift by more than 50% in 60% of participants. Further participants had an average of 20–50% fluctuations in readings on a week-to-week basis. This week-to-week fluctuation appeared to be driven primarily by sudden episodic shifts in Aβ content with only a few individuals showing sustained shifts. We report no significant difference in fluctuations in Aβ content by sex or race of participants. However, we do find plasma amyloid content (Aβ42, Aβ40, and Aβ42/Aβ40) to be elevated in male participants. Finally, we show some participants to present higher levels of amyloid flux than others at least on a micro-longitudinal scale. These findings highlight the dynamic nature of plasma Aβ levels, contrasting with the expected stability over such a short period.
conclusionsThe substantial levels of weekly variability in plasma Aβ levels we observed are comparable to the 18-month rate of change reported in recent pharmaceutical trials, and suggests that relying solely on these biomarkers for AD monitoring or outcome assessment could be misleading without considering their temporal fluctuations. This study emphasizes the need for frequent sampling and cautious interpretation when using plasma Aβ levels as an outcome measure.
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.