ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Biomarker Variability Limits Individualized Amyloid Time Estimation in Alzheimer Disease.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Disease progression modeling (DPM) or "amyloid time" is increasingly used to stage Alzheimer disease (AD). DPM performance depends on within-individual heterogeneity in rates of pathological accumulation as well as test-retest reliability of the biomarker. The relative contributions of these variabilities have not been systematically assessed. This would be particularly relevant if extrapolations from DPM were to be used to make individual-level predictions for research, clinical trials, or potentially future clinical practice. Methods: We conducted simulation studies incorporating empirically-derived noise properties from amyloid biomarkers to assess the contributions of inter- and intra-individual variability. Findings generalized in an autosomal dominant AD cohort with amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and plasma biomarkers and in a sporadic AD cohort with both amyloid PET and plasma biomarkers. We assessed group level DPM performance via mean average error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE). At the individual level, we evaluated distinctness of distributions of biomarker levels associated with specific disease timings. Results: Inter-individual variability was the dominant source of error in temporal estimates. Intra-individual variability reduced estimate stability. Optimal performance occurred in biomarkers with positive average accumulation rates where a subset of individuals had exceptionally high levels of accumulation. In research study data, amyloid PET outperformed CSF and plasma biomarkers. Interpretation: DPM is fundamentally constrained by dynamic range, variability, and test-retest reliability of the biomarker of interest. Current DPM approaches are more robust at the group level, particularly when applied to biomarkers with more than 10-15% variability like fluid biomarkers. Funding: National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer's Association, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Raul Carrea Institute for Neurological Research, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare and Ministry of Science and ICT, Spanish Institute of Health.
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.