Home › Research › Biomarkers
Fully automated and highly specific plasma β-amyloid immunoassays predict β-amyloid status defined by amyloid positron emission tomography with high accuracy
Yamashita K, Miura M, Watanabe S, Ishiki K, Arimatsu Y, Kawahira J, Kubo T, Sasaki K et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2022-06-23
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Clinicians, researchers, and patients alike would greatly benefit from more accessible and inexpensive biomarkers for neural β-amyloid (Aβ). We aimed to assess the performance of fully automated plasma Aβ immunoassays, which correlate significantly with immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry assays, in predicting brain Aβ status as determined by visual read assessment of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET). Methods The plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio was measured using a fully automated immunoassay platform (HISCL series) in two clinical studies (discovery and validation studies). The discovery and validation sample sets were retrospectively and randomly selected from participants with early Alzheimer's disease (AD) identified during screening for the elenbecestat Phase 3 program. Results We included 197 participants in the discovery study (mean [SD] age 71.1 [8.5] years; 112 females) and 200 in the validation study (age 70.8 [7.9] years; 99 females). The plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio predicted amyloid PET visual read status with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.941 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.910-0.973) and 0.868 (95% CI 0.816-0.920) in the discovery and validation studies, respectively. In the discovery study, a cutoff value of 0.102 was determined based on maximizing the Youden Index, and the sensitivity and specificity were calculated to be 96.0% (95% CI 90.1-98.9%) and 83.5% (95% CI 74.6-90.3%), respectively. Using the same cutoff value, the sensitivity and specificity in the validation study were calculated to be 88.0% (95% CI 80.0-93.6%) and 72.0% (95% CI 62.1-80.5%), respectively. Conclusions The plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio measured using the HISCL series achieved high accuracy in predicting amyloid PET status. Since our blood-based immunoassay system is less invasive and more accessible than amyloid PET and cerebrospinal fluid testing, it may contribute to the diagnosis of AD in routine clinical practice.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Yamashita, K., Miura, M., Watanabe, S., Ishiki, K., Arimatsu, Y., Kawahira, J., et al. (2022). Fully automated and highly specific plasma β-amyloid immunoassays predict β-amyloid status defined by amyloid positron emission tomography with high accuracy. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-01029-0
Vancouver
Yamashita K, Miura M, Watanabe S, Ishiki K, Arimatsu Y, Kawahira J, et al. Fully automated and highly specific plasma β-amyloid immunoassays predict β-amyloid status defined by amyloid positron emission tomography with high accuracy. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2022. doi:10.1186/s13195-022-01029-0. PMID: 35739591.
BibTeX
@article{yamashita2022-35739591,
author = {Yamashita, K. and Miura, M. and Watanabe, S. and Ishiki, K. and Arimatsu, Y. and Kawahira, J. and Kubo, T. and Sasaki, K. and others},
title = {{Fully automated and highly specific plasma β-amyloid immunoassays predict β-amyloid status defined by amyloid positron emission tomography with high accuracy}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-022-01029-0},
pmid = {35739591},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-01029-0}
}
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 aimed to assess the performance of fully automated plasma Aβ immunoassays, which correlate significantly with immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry assays, in predicting brain Aβ status as determined by visual read assessment of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET).
- Results We included 197 participants in the discovery study (mean [SD] age 71.1 [8.5] years; 112 females) and 200 in the validation study (age 70.8 [7.9] years; 99 females).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Participants197
- Effect size96.0%; 98.9%; 83.5%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
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 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 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 | Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 197 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 | — / 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 35739591) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 32 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 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 “pet-imaging”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “pet-imaging”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.