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.

51/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

The study included 197 patients in whom lecanemab infusions had been started (lecanemab group), as well as 173 patients in whom lecanemab had been ordered but not yet started, who were combined with 1139 research participants with cognitive impairment from the Knight ADRC cohort to form the untreated control group with cognitive impairment (n=1312). An additional 458 research participants formed the Aβ- control group without cognitive impairment. In the lecanemab group, the median patient age was 73 years (IQR 69-77); 104 (53%) were female and 93 (47%) were male; and most participants were White (187 [98%] of 190 with available data) and non-Hispanic (183 [97%] of 188 with available data). 130 biomarkers were classified into four distinct trajectories, with 34 showing significant changes (false discovery rate <0·05) in the lecanemab group. The trajectories were: normalising, with biomarkers shifting towards concentrations found in Aβ-individuals without cognitive impairment (eg, phosphorylated tau [p-tau]217, MAPT, and GFAP); overcorrecting, with biomarkers shifting towards and then beyond concentrations found in Aβ- individuals without cognitive impairment (eg, amyloid β peptides); opposite, with biomarkers shifting further from concentrations found in Aβ- individuals without cognitive impairment (eg, NPTXR, NRGN, and TREM2); and unchanged (eg, NEFL and APOE). Lecanemab treatment was associated with dynamic, multidirectional changes across plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease pathology, with partial normalisation of amyloid and tau biomarkers alongside abnormal concentrations of inflammatory and neurodegeneration-related biomarkers (eg, TREM2 and NPTXR), which might reflect an immune response to amyloid plaques and effects of treatment on neuronal and synaptic processes distinct from amyloid clearance. These divergent trajectories suggest that different biomarkers could eventually serve different clinical purposes, such as monitoring treatment response or informing patient prognosis, although further validation is needed. FUNDING: National Institute on Aging, Cure Alzheimer's Fund, and Washington University.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Moderate

This is a follow-up (cohort) study of 1,312 participants. In patients treated with lecanemab, 34 of 130 plasma biomarkers showed significant changes, with some shifting toward levels seen in amyloid-negative people without cognitive impairment. The study describes biomarker changes during treatment but does not report whether this translates into curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

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

APA 7th

Mu, R., Hofmann, A., Gong, K., Liu, M., Roussak, A., Lowery, J., et al. (2026). Dynamic changes in plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease in patients treated with lecanemab: a longitudinal cohort study. The Lancet Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(26)00284-x

Vancouver

Mu R, Hofmann A, Gong K, Liu M, Roussak A, Lowery J, et al. Dynamic changes in plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease in patients treated with lecanemab: a longitudinal cohort study. The Lancet Neurology. 2026. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(26)00284-x. PMID: 42785333.

BibTeX

@article{mu2026-42785333,
  author  = {Mu, Rui and Hofmann, Anna and Gong, Katherine and Liu, Menghan and Roussak, Alex and Lowery, Joseph and Chen, Yike and Paczynski, Madeline and others},
  title   = {{Dynamic changes in plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease in patients treated with lecanemab: a longitudinal cohort study}},
  journal = {The Lancet Neurology},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1016/s1474-4422(26)00284-x},
  pmid    = {42785333},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(26)00284-x}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record lists 1,312 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

The study included 197 patients in whom lecanemab infusions had been started (lecanemab group), as well as 173 patients in whom lecanemab had been ordered but not yet started, who were combined with 1139 research participants with cognitive impairment from the Knight ADRC cohort to form the untreated control group with cognitive impairment (n=1312).
An additional 458 research participants formed the Aβ- control group without cognitive impairment.
In the lecanemab group, the median patient age was 73 years (IQR 69-77); 104 (53%) were female and 93 (47%) were male; and most participants were White (187 [98%] of 190 with available data) and non-Hispanic (183 [97%] of 188 with available data). 130 biomarkers were classified into four distinct trajectories, with 34 showing significant changes (false discovery rate <0·05) in the lecanemab group.
The trajectories were: normalising, with biomarkers shifting towards concentrations found in Aβ-individuals without cognitive impairment (eg, phosphorylated tau [p-tau]217, MAPT, and GFAP); overcorrecting, with biomarkers shifting towards and then beyond concentrations found in Aβ- individuals without cognitive impairment (eg, amyloid β peptides); opposite, with biomarkers shifting further from concentrations found in Aβ- individuals without cognitive impairment (eg, NPTXR, NRGN, and TREM2); and unchanged (eg, NEFL and APOE).
Lecanemab treatment was associated with dynamic, multidirectional changes across plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease pathology, with partial normalisation of amyloid and tau biomarkers alongside abnormal concentrations of inflammatory and neurodegeneration-related biomarkers (eg, TREM2 and NPTXR), which might reflect an immune response to amyloid plaques and effects of treatment on neuronal and synaptic processes distinct from amyloid clearance.

Why it matters

In patients treated with lecanemab, 34 of 130 plasma biomarkers showed significant changes, with some shifting toward levels seen in amyloid-negative people without cognitive impairment. The study describes biomarker changes during treatment but does not report whether this translates into curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Study designcohort study
Participants1,312
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 51/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomized / 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 49 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 51 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Lancet Neurology)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	The Lancet Neurology: journal h-index 457 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A cohort study following people over 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	3 / 4	1,312 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	0 / 7	Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
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	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
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 Carlos Cruchaga holds only 1 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record	2 / 3	Washington University in St. Louis: institution h-index 1,962 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42785333)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	49 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 49 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 51 out of 100.
Total	51 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 13.

In the news

1 news article on alzhub's news page cites this paper.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “cerebrospinal”

820 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cerebrospinal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 820 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

Where this led: Lecanemab on the treatments page — its current status, approval date, side-effect rate and list price, kept up to date.

See all studies in Biomarkers →