ArticleBMC health services research2026
Cost-utility analysis of cerebrospinal fluid versus blood biomarkers for early detection of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment in Thailand: a modeling study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the cost-utility of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood-based amyloid beta biomarkers for early detection of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment among older Thai adults at high risk of dementia.
methodsWe constructed a decision tree with Markov models from a societal perspective, using a 1-year cycle over a lifetime horizon and applying a 3% annual discount. Amyloid beta (Aβ)1–42 was used for CSF, while Aβ40 and Aβ42 were used for blood. Sensitivity and specificity data were primarily derived from Thai patients at Siriraj Hospital, and nonpharmacological treatment efficacy was obtained from the FINGER study. Epidemiological data, transition probabilities, and costs were collected from the literature and Siriraj Hospital; direct nonmedical costs and utility values were also obtained from Siriraj. We calculated lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), evaluating cost-effectiveness against THB160,000 (USD4,370) per QALY. Parameter uncertainty was explored via sensitivity analyses. This is non-clinical trail study.
resultsCompared with no testing, the CSF strategy yielded 0.011 additional life-years and 0.019 additional QALYs for an extra cost of THB2,589 (USD71), resulting in an ICER of THB132,961 (USD3,632) per QALY. Blood-based testing provided 0.009 additional life-years and 0.017 QALYs for an extra cost of THB15,467 (USD422), leading to an ICER of THB907,057 (USD24,776) per QALY.
conclusionsCSF biomarker testing is cost-effective in Thailand, whereas blood-based biomarkers are not. Reducing the cost of Simoa (the technology used to measure blood biomarkers) by approximately 83% would improve the cost-effectiveness of blood-based biomarkers. Future research should enhance blood biomarker accuracy.
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.