Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 59 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Blood biomarkers are rapidly becoming established for Alzheimer's Disease (AD) diagnosis. However, there is a need for more scalable tools to reach the 99% of individuals with early cognitive impairment who are not seen in specialist healthcare services. A recent study validated a capillary blood sampling technique to detect the p-tau217 and GFAP biomarkers. Here we used our PROTECT research study to show that these biomarkers, when collected using self-administered fingerprick tests, correlate well with venous blood biomarkers and with cognition and function in 174 people who were cognitively normal or who had mild cognitive impairment or AD. They can be used in combination with computerised cognitive testing to identify people with the highest risk of AD. The GFAP biomarker appears to be associated with vascular risk, unlike p-tau217. Patient feedback indicates high acceptability and usability of the capillary test method, giving confidence in the feasibility of this technology. The work suggests that capillary blood biomarkers could be used to enable triage of people with varying levels of risk of AD in clinical practice and for clinical trials, and could be used outside of clinical settings.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Corbett, A., Sander-Long, M., Ashton, N. J., Huber, H., Vavra, J., Braun-Wohlfahrt, L. S., et al. (2026). Alzheimer's Disease blood biomarkers measured through remote capillary sampling correlate with cognition in older adults. Nature communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71448-2

Vancouver

Corbett A, Sander-Long M, Ashton NJ, Huber H, Vavra J, Braun-Wohlfahrt LS, et al. Alzheimer's Disease blood biomarkers measured through remote capillary sampling correlate with cognition in older adults. Nature communications. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41467-026-71448-2. PMID: 42091863.

BibTeX

@article{corbett2026-42091863,
  author  = {Corbett, A. and Sander-Long, M. and Ashton, N. J. and Huber, H. and Vavra, J. and Braun-Wohlfahrt, L. S. and Zetterberg, H. and Montoliu-Gaya, L. and others},
  title   = {{Alzheimer's Disease blood biomarkers measured through remote capillary sampling correlate with cognition in older adults}},
  journal = {Nature communications},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1038/s41467-026-71448-2},
  pmid    = {42091863},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-71448-2}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 59/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 34 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 59 of 100. Total 59 of 100.34 of the 58 points we could judge = 59 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Nature communications)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 174 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42091863)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 34 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100.
Total 59 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “correlates”

7 studies in the library carry the topic tag “correlates”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 7 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →