Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
Comparison of a multi-analyte algorithmic immunoassay blood test with immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry for the detection of amyloid pathology
Wilson David, Copeland Karen, Mette Lindsey, Khare Meenakshi, Polak Matt, Signes Jorge Marques, Skelton Tim. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2026-07-11
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Alzheimer's blood-based biomarker (BBM) tests using single biomarkers or ratios are well characterized, but head-to-head comparisons of multi-analyte algorithmic tests on shared cohorts are lacking. We compared a five-biomarker algorithmic immunoassay (LucentAD Complete) with an algorithmic immunoprecipitation mass-spectrometry (IP-MS) benchmark on a shared plasma cohort. Symptomatic individuals (n = 192) with longitudinal samples from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were analyzed versus amyloid positron emission tomography (PET). Cross-sectional (n = 115) and longitudinal (n = 179; 12-year span) cohorts representing disease progression were used. The immunoassay amyloid risk score demonstrated a 0.94 area under the curve (AUC) and 92%-93% accuracy, achieving performance parity with IP-MS metrics on shared samples. The two-cutoff design yielded an intermediate zone of 10.4%-12.8%. These results establish diagnostic parity between algorithmic immunoassay and algorithmic IP-MS assay. In addition, providing individual biomarker results alongside a validated risk score offers a more granular foundation for comprehensive management than amyloid status alone, supporting premium reimbursement for multi-analyte algorithmic BBMs in clinical practice.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
David, W., Karen, C., Lindsey, M., Meenakshi, K., Matt, P., Marques, S. J., et al. (2026). Comparison of a multi-analyte algorithmic immunoassay blood test with immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry for the detection of amyloid pathology. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70420
Vancouver
David W, Karen C, Lindsey M, Meenakshi K, Matt P, Marques SJ, et al. Comparison of a multi-analyte algorithmic immunoassay blood test with immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry for the detection of amyloid pathology. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2026. doi:10.1002/dad2.70420. PMID: 42434607.
BibTeX
@article{david2026-42434607,
author = {David, Wilson and Karen, Copeland and Lindsey, Mette and Meenakshi, Khare and Matt, Polak and Marques, Signes Jorge and Tim, Skelton},
title = {{Comparison of a multi-analyte algorithmic immunoassay blood test with immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry for the detection of amyloid pathology}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.70420},
pmid = {42434607},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70420}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Symptomatic individuals (n = 192) with longitudinal samples from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were analyzed versus amyloid positron emission tomography (PET).
- The immunoassay amyloid risk score demonstrated a 0.94 area under the curve (AUC) and 92%-93% accuracy, achieving performance parity with IP-MS metrics on shared samples.
- These results establish diagnostic parity between algorithmic immunoassay and algorithmic IP-MS assay.
- In addition, providing individual biomarker results alongside a validated risk score offers a more granular foundation for comprehensive management than amyloid status alone, supporting premium reimbursement for multi-analyte algorithmic BBMs in clinical practice.
Why it matters
A five-biomarker algorithmic immunoassay blood test detected amyloid pathology with 0.94 area under the curve and 92%-93% accuracy, matching an immunoprecipitation mass-spectrometry benchmark on shared samples. This is a diagnostic comparison and provides no information about treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants192
- Effect size10.4%; 12.8%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 44 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring: journal h-index 86 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 192 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-17) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 6 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Tim Skelton holds only 7 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | Lahey Hospital and Medical Center: institution h-index 328 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42434607) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 44 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 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 this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 14.
Later studies that cite this one
6 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “classification”
835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.