ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Blood biomarkers to improve dementia diagnostic accuracy: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe recommended dementia diagnostic pathway comprises non-specialist assessment followed by specialist diagnosis. Given increasing resource constraints and existing inequalities in accessing specialist care, more accurate assessment in non-specialist settings may improve dementia management. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of blood biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and neurodegeneration for detecting probable AD (PAD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with amyloid positivity (AP), particularly when they supplement current non-specialist practice of administering Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
methodsWe accessed data from the Bio-Hermes study which grouped participants as cognitively normal (n=417), MCI (n=312), and PAD (n=272). Blood biomarkers of AD and neurodegeneration included: amyloid-beta 42/40; phosphorylated-tau 181 (p-tau181); p-tau217; glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP); and neurofilament light (NfL). Biomarkers were added individually or as panel to MMSE to predict the following diagnostic outcomes: PAD; MCI or PAD (MCI-PAD); PAD with AP measured by positron emission tomography/cerebrospinal fluid (PAD-AP); and MCI-PAD with AP (MCI-PAD-AP). Accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under ROC curve (AUC) following logistic regression, adjusted for covariates observable in general clinical setting (e.g., alcohol, smoking, functional impairment) and apolipoprotein E ε4 carrier status. Statistically significant differences in AUC were estimated by DeLong test. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age and race/ethnicity.
resultsMMSE plus individual biomarkers or panels significantly improved accuracy to detect PAD-AP and MCI-PAD-AP versus MMSE alone: e.g., AUC for MMSE+p-tau217, adjusted for covariates, to detect MCI-PAD-AP was 0.928 versus 0.844 for MMSE alone (DeLong test for significance P<0.001); MMSE plus optimal panel comprising all five biomarkers achieved AUC of 0.939 (DeLong P<0.001 versus MMSE alone). AUC improvements from biomarker addition were smaller, sometimes not statistically significant, for PAD and MCI-PAD. Composition of optimal panel varied across subgroups: e.g., p-tau217 was included in the optimal panel for non-Hispanic White, while p-tau181 was included in the panel instead for non-White race/ethnicity.
conclusionsBlood biomarker supplementation of cognitive testing can improve detection of amyloid-positive MCI and dementia. This potentially supports an efficient and equitable dementia diagnostic pathway which contributes to the sustainable delivery of prospective amyloid-targeting therapies with proven safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
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.