Home › Research › Biomarkers
Independent study demonstrates amyloid probability score accurately indicates amyloid pathology
Fogelman I, West T, Braunstein JB, Verghese PB, Kirmess KM, Meyer MR, Contois JH, Shobin E et al.. Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2023-03-28
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background The amyloid probability score (APS) is the model read-out of the analytically validated mass spectrometry-based PrecivityAD ® blood test that incorporates the plasma Aβ42/40 ratio, ApoE proteotype, and age to identify the likelihood of brain amyloid plaques among cognitively impaired individuals being evaluated for Alzheimer's disease. Purpose This study aimed to provide additional independent evidence that the pre-established APS algorithm, along with its cutoff values, discriminates between amyloid positive and negative individuals. Methods The diagnostic performance of the PrecivityAD test was analyzed in a cohort of 200 nonrandomly selected Australian Imaging, Biomarker & Lifestyle Flagship Study of Aging (AIBL) study participants, who were either cognitively impaired or healthy controls, and for whom a blood sample and amyloid PET imaging were available. Results In a subset of the dataset aligned with the Intended Use population (patients aged 60 and older with CDR ≥0.5), the pre-established APS algorithm predicted amyloid PET with a sensitivity of 84.9% (CI: 72.9-92.1%) and specificity of 96% (CI: 80.5-99.3%), exclusive of 13 individuals for whom the test was inconclusive. Interpretation The study shows individuals with a high APS are more likely than those with a low APS to have abnormal amounts of amyloid plaques and be on an amyloid accumulation trajectory, a dynamic and evolving process characteristic of progressive AD pathology. Exploratory data suggest APS retains its diagnostic performance in healthy individuals, supporting further screening studies in the cognitively unimpaired.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Fogelman, I., West, T., Braunstein, J. B., Verghese, P. B., Kirmess, K. M., Meyer, M. R., et al. (2023). Independent study demonstrates amyloid probability score accurately indicates amyloid pathology. Annals of clinical and translational neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51763
Vancouver
Fogelman I, West T, Braunstein JB, Verghese PB, Kirmess KM, Meyer MR, et al. Independent study demonstrates amyloid probability score accurately indicates amyloid pathology. Annals of clinical and translational neurology. 2023. doi:10.1002/acn3.51763. PMID: 36975407.
BibTeX
@article{fogelman2023-36975407,
author = {Fogelman, I. and West, T. and Braunstein, J. B. and Verghese, P. B. and Kirmess, K. M. and Meyer, M. R. and Contois, J. H. and Shobin, E. and others},
title = {{Independent study demonstrates amyloid probability score accurately indicates amyloid pathology}},
journal = {Annals of clinical and translational neurology},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1002/acn3.51763},
pmid = {36975407},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51763}
}
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
- Results In a subset of the dataset aligned with the Intended Use population (patients aged 60 and older with CDR ≥0.5), the pre-established APS algorithm predicted amyloid PET with a sensitivity of 84.9% (CI: 72.9-92.1%) and specificity of 96% (CI: 80.5-99.3%), exclusive of 13 individuals for whom the test was inconclusive.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants13
- Effect size84.9%; 92.1%; 99.3%
- Evidence strengthModerate
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 (Annals of clinical and translational neurology) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 13 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 36975407) |
| 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 “indicates”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “indicates”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.