Home › Research › Biomarkers
Optimizing timing and cost-effective use of plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease
Hsin-I Chang, Mi-Chia Ma, Kuo-Lun Huang, Chung-Gue Huang, Shu-Hua Huang, Chi-Wei Huang, Kun-Ju Lin, Chiung-Chih Chang. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2025-08-20
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
When benchmarked against amyloid PET, plasma biomarker-based stratification achieves an optimal balance between diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness. The multi-class LR performed equivalently with RF model in identifying A+. The combined plasma panel reached an > 92% accuracy in identifying A+, with performance increasing to 93.4% at early clinical stages. We ranked the importance of individual biomarkers and pTau217 alone achieved comparable accuracy (> 90%) and was the top-ranked biomarker in the LR or RF model. NFL and GFAP correlated significantly with Mini-Mental State Examination; however, these plasma biomarkers did not enhance clinical staging stratification. The use of multiclass LR model enhances amyloid classification, particularly at earlier clinical stages. While the combined-panel approach is most accurate, pTau217 alone provides a cost-effective alternative for screening. These findings support the integration of plasma biomarkers and ML into clinical workflows for early detection and patient stratification.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chang, H.-I., Ma, M.-C., Huang, K.-L., Huang, C.-G., Huang, S.-H., Huang, C.-W., et al. (2025). Optimizing timing and cost-effective use of plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01851-2
Vancouver
Chang H.-I, Ma M.-C, Huang K.-L, Huang C.-G, Huang S.-H, Huang C.-W, et al. Optimizing timing and cost-effective use of plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2025. doi:10.1186/s13195-025-01851-2. PMID: 40830505.
BibTeX
@article{chang2025-40830505,
author = {Chang, Hsin-I and Ma, Mi-Chia and Huang, Kuo-Lun and Huang, Chung-Gue and Huang, Shu-Hua and Huang, Chi-Wei and Lin, Kun-Ju and Chang, Chiung-Chih},
title = {{Optimizing timing and cost-effective use of plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-025-01851-2},
pmid = {40830505},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01851-2}
}
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 8 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
- When benchmarked against amyloid PET, plasma biomarker-based stratification achieves an optimal balance between diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness.
- The multi-class LR performed equivalently with RF model in identifying A+.
- The combined plasma panel reached an > 92% accuracy in identifying A+, with performance increasing to 93.4% at early clinical stages.
- We ranked the importance of individual biomarkers and pTau217 alone achieved comparable accuracy (> 90%) and was the top-ranked biomarker in the LR or RF model.
- NFL and GFAP correlated significantly with Mini-Mental State Examination; however, these plasma biomarkers did not enhance clinical staging stratification.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants143
- Effect size93.4%
- 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 56 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 | 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 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 143 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 40830505) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 31 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “neurofilament”
693 studies in the library carry the topic tag “neurofilament”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 693 tagged studies.