ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2026
Head-to-head comparison of neurodegeneration biomarkers across two analytical platforms in Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Amyloid-β Clearance Mechanisms: A Multi-modal Study on Lymphatic, Glymphatic and Blood-brain-barrier Function in Alzheimer's Disease
Cerebral Clearance Mechanisms in Atypical Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Multi-modal Study on Lymphatic, Glymphatic and Blood-brain-barrier Function
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood-based biomarkers are increasingly used to support the identification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical and research settings. However, variability between analytical platforms limits their interchangeability and may affect their clinical interpretation. Direct head-to-head comparisons across assays and their alignment with clinical phenotypes remain limited.
objectiveTo compare the inter-test agreement of blood-based biomarkers measured using Roche and Fujirebio assays and to determine which biomarker shows the most robust analytical concordance and clinical relevance in AD.
methodsParticipants with AD (n = 86) and cognitively healthy controls (HC; n = 56) underwent blood biomarker assessment using Roche and Fujirebio platforms. Plasma phosphorylated tau at threonine 217 (pTau217), plasma phosphorylated tau at threonine 181 (pTau181), Amyloid-β42 (Aβ42), amyloid-β40 (Aβ40), and the amyloid-β42/amyloid-β40 ratio (Aβ42/Aβ40) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) were analyzed. Inter-test agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, concordance analyses, and regression-based methods. Clinical relevance was evaluated by association with measures of cognitive and functional impairment evaluated using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale - Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Analyses were adjusted for age and sex and complemented by sensitivity and stability analyses.
resultsInter-test agreement varied across biomarkers, with pTau217 demonstrating the highest and most stable concordance between Roche and Fujirebio assays. Among the evaluated markers, pTau217 also showed the strongest and most consistent associations with global cognition measures across diagnostic groups and best discriminated between individuals with AD and HC. GFAP demonstrated robust inter-test agreement but weaker alignment with clinical measures, while amyloid-based markers showed lower concordance and greater variability across platforms.
conclusionsHead-to-head comparison of Roche and Fujirebio assays revealed biomarker-specific differences in inter-test agreement, limiting the direct interchangeability of measurements across platforms. Plasma pTau217 showed the most consistent analytical concordance and clinical associations in this setting, supporting its potential utility in cross-platform applications. However, these findings also highlight the need for assay-specific calibration and cautious interpretation of biomarker thresholds in clinical and research use and the need for further validation across diverse populations.
trial registrationNCT05059158, NCT05317871.
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.