Home › Research › Biomarkers
Analytical and clinical performance of eight Simoa® and Lumipulse® assays for automated measurement of plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217
Anna L Wojdała, Jeroen Vanbrabant, Sherif Bayoumy, Daniel Antwi-Berko, Nathalie Le Bastard, Wiesje M van der Flier, Andreas Jeromin, Charlotte Lambrechts et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2024-12-19
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
We found a strong, positive correlation between all the measurements. Fixed and/or proportional bias was observed for each of compared p-tau181 assay pairs or p-tau217 assay pairs. While both plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217 levels were significantly increased in AD-dem vs. Control groups as measured by all assays, higher median concentration AD-dem/Control fold change and AUC values were observed for p-tau217 (assays range: fold change 3.72-6.74, AUC 0.916-0.956) compared with p-tau181 (assays range 1.81-2.94, AUC 0.829-0.909), independently of the platform used. No significant differences were observed between diagnostic performance of p-tau181 assays or p-tau217 assays targeting tau N-terminus or mid-region. Although all plasma p-tau measurements enabled discrimination between clinical groups, p-tau217 assays showed the highest robustness, independently of the pan-tau detector antibody targeting N-terminal or mid-region, and independently of the platform used. Considering the observed method disagreement in measured absolute concentrations, we stress the need for development of certified reference material, harmonizing measurements across different platforms.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wojdała, A. L., Vanbrabant, J., Bayoumy, S., Antwi-Berko, D., Le Bastard, N., van der Flier, W. M., et al. (2024). Analytical and clinical performance of eight Simoa® and Lumipulse® assays for automated measurement of plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01630-5
Vancouver
Wojdała AL, Vanbrabant J, Bayoumy S, Antwi-Berko D, Le Bastard N, van der Flier WM, et al. Analytical and clinical performance of eight Simoa® and Lumipulse® assays for automated measurement of plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2024. doi:10.1186/s13195-024-01630-5. PMID: 39702308.
BibTeX
@article{wojdala2024-39702308,
author = {Wojdała, Anna L and Vanbrabant, Jeroen and Bayoumy, Sherif and Antwi-Berko, Daniel and Le Bastard, Nathalie and van der Flier, Wiesje M and Jeromin, Andreas and Lambrechts, Charlotte and others},
title = {{Analytical and clinical performance of eight Simoa® and Lumipulse® assays for automated measurement of plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-024-01630-5},
pmid = {39702308},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01630-5}
}
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
- We found a strong, positive correlation between all the measurements.
- Fixed and/or proportional bias was observed for each of compared p-tau181 assay pairs or p-tau217 assay pairs.
- While both plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217 levels were significantly increased in AD-dem vs.
- Control groups as measured by all assays, higher median concentration AD-dem/Control fold change and AUC values were observed for p-tau217 (assays range: fold change 3.72-6.74, AUC 0.916-0.956) compared with p-tau181 (assays range 1.81-2.94, AUC 0.829-0.909), independently of the platform used.
- No significant differences were observed between diagnostic performance of p-tau181 assays or p-tau217 assays targeting tau N-terminus or mid-region.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants40
- Effect sizeAUC 0.916-0.956; AUC 0.829-0.909
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 40 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39702308) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 33 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 56 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “phosphorylation”
389 studies in the library carry the topic tag “phosphorylation”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 389 tagged studies.