Home › Research › Biomarkers
Assessment of the Correlation and Diagnostic Accuracy between Cerebrospinal Fluid and Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers: A Comparison of the Lumipulse and Simoa Platforms
Dakterzada F, Cipriani R, López-Ortega R, Arias A, Riba-Llena I, Ruiz-Julián M, Huerto R, Tahan N et al.. International journal of molecular sciences, 2024-04-23
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
We compared the clinical and analytical performance of Alzheimer's disease (AD) plasma biomarkers measured using the single-molecule array (Simoa) and Lumipulse platforms. We quantified the plasma levels of amyloid beta 42 (Aβ42), Aβ40, phosphorylated tau (Ptau181), and total tau biomarkers in 81 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 30 with AD, and 16 with non-AD dementia. We found a strong correlation between the Simoa and Lumipulse methods. Concerning the clinical diagnosis, Simoa Ptau181/Aβ42 (AUC 0.739, 95% CI 0.592-0.887) and Lumipulse Aβ42 and Ptau181/Aβ42 (AUC 0.735, 95% CI 0.589-0.882 and AUC 0.733, 95% CI 0.567-0.900) had the highest discriminating power. However, their power was significantly lower than that of CSF Aβ42/Aβ40, as measured by Lumipulse (AUC 0.879, 95% CI 0.766-0.992). Simoa Ptau181 and Lumipulse Ptau181/Aβ42 were the markers most consistent with the CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 status (AUC 0.801, 95% CI 0.712-0.890 vs. AUC 0.870, 95% CI 0.806-0.934, respectively) at the ≥2.127 and ≥0.084 cut-offs, respectively. The performance of the Simoa and Lumipulse plasma AD assays is weaker than that of CSF AD biomarkers. At present, the analysed AD plasma biomarkers may be useful for screening to reduce the number of lumbar punctures in the clinical setting.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dakterzada, F., Cipriani, R., López-Ortega, R., Arias, A., Riba-Llena, I., Ruiz-Julián, M., et al. (2024). Assessment of the Correlation and Diagnostic Accuracy between Cerebrospinal Fluid and Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers: A Comparison of the Lumipulse and Simoa Platforms. International journal of molecular sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25094594
Vancouver
Dakterzada F, Cipriani R, López-Ortega R, Arias A, Riba-Llena I, Ruiz-Julián M, et al. Assessment of the Correlation and Diagnostic Accuracy between Cerebrospinal Fluid and Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers: A Comparison of the Lumipulse and Simoa Platforms. International journal of molecular sciences. 2024. doi:10.3390/ijms25094594. PMID: 38731812.
BibTeX
@article{dakterzada2024-38731812,
author = {Dakterzada, F. and Cipriani, R. and López-Ortega, R. and Arias, A. and Riba-Llena, I. and Ruiz-Julián, M. and Huerto, R. and Tahan, N. and others},
title = {{Assessment of the Correlation and Diagnostic Accuracy between Cerebrospinal Fluid and Plasma Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers: A Comparison of the Lumipulse and Simoa Platforms}},
journal = {International journal of molecular sciences},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3390/ijms25094594},
pmid = {38731812},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25094594}
}
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 correlation between the Simoa and Lumipulse methods.
- However, their power was significantly lower than that of CSF Aβ42/Aβ40, as measured by Lumipulse (AUC 0.879, 95% CI 0.766-0.992).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants81
- Effect sizeAUC 0.739; AUC 0.735; AUC 0.733
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of molecular sciences) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 81 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 38731812) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “simoa”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “simoa”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.