ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2026
Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers Measured by Capillary Blood Collection Versus Venous Plasma and Cerebrospinal Fluid.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBlood biomarkers are increasingly critical for non-invasive Alzheimer's Disease (AD) diagnostics and research but typically require on-site processing. Remote point-of-care collection methods could enhance biomarker testing in clinical and research settings. We evaluated the safety and accuracy of blood collection via venous blood and two capillary blood collection devices (Tasso+ and TAPII) for measurements of amyloid-beta 42/40 ratio (Aβ42/40), phosphorylated-tau-217 (pTau217), neurofilament-light (NfL), and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) from capillary plasma to simultaneously collected venous plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
methodsPatients seen at the Johns Hopkins Center for CSF Disorders (N = 192) underwent diagnostic lumbar punctures and venipuncture. Warming packs were held to the skin for 5 min before collecting capillary blood (via TAPII or Tasso+ device) and numeric pain scores. CSF, venous, and capillary plasma were analyzed using Quanterix SIMOA immunoassays. Statistical analysis included Pearson/Spearman correlations, Lasso regression, and quantitative comparisons using Bland-Altman plots.
results86 TAPII and 126 Tasso+ plasma samples were collected (77 M, 115 F; mean age 61 ± 18.3 years, range 16-91). Tasso+ devices were 90.3% successful in collecting > 50 μL whole blood, and TAPII devices were 86% successful. Mean pain scores were significantly higher in venous than capillary collections (Venous 2.24/10, TAPII 0.73/10, Tasso+ 0.2/10, p < 0.001). Capillary Aβ42/40, NfL, and GFAP strongly correlated with venous plasma analytes (Tasso+: Aβ42/40 r = 0.75, NfL r = 0.91, GFAP r = 0.80, all p < 0.001; TAPII: Aβ42/40 r = 0.74, NfL r = 0.86, GFAP r = 0.84, all p < 0.001). Tasso+ capillary pTau217 weakly correlated with venous (r = 0.23, p = 0.04). Capillary NfL and GFAP correlated modestly with CSF NfL and GFAP (TAPII NfL r = 0.74, GFAP r = 0.6, all p < 0.0001; Tasso+ NfL r = 0.69, GFAP r = 0.59, all p < 0.0001). Capillary Aβ42/40 and pTau217 did not significantly correlate with CSF measures. Lasso regression identified age and GFAP as significant predictors of AD across capillary and venous samples (Tasso+ AUC = 0.87, TAPII AUC = 0.75, Venous AUC = 0.83).
interpretationNeurodegeneration biomarkers Aβ42/40, NfL, and GFAP in capillary plasma (Tasso+, TAPII) strongly correlated with venous plasma measures. Capillary and venous pTau217 correlated weakly, indicating further assay refinement is needed. Tasso+ collection was less painful and caused less hemolysis compared to TAPII.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42885968What 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.