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.

52/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Importance Blood-based biomarkers (BBM) provide minimally invasive, scalable, lower-cost tools for identifying neurodegenerative diseases, but prospective data on their clinical validity in memory clinic settings are limited. Objective To evaluate how a tailored plasma BBM panel (phosphorylated tau 181 [pTau181], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], and neurofilament light chain [NfL]) during multidisciplinary diagnostic meetings is associated with syndrome diagnosis, suspected etiology, and clinician confidence. Design, setting, and participants This prospective diagnostic study enrolled consecutive patients whose BBM were presented during weekly multidisciplinary meetings after standard workup (clinical assessment, neuropsychological testing, and brain magnetic resonance imaging) from September 2023 to October 2024 at 3 academic memory clinics in the Netherlands. When available, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) results were subsequently shown. Findings were categorized as high, intermediate, or low probability for Alzheimer disease (AD), frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD), or dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Data were analyzed from December 2024 to July 2025. Exposures BBM (pTau181, GFAP, and NfL) measured weekly and analyzed jointly as a diagnostic panel. Main outcomes and measures Outcomes of interest were changes in suspected syndrome diagnoses, primary etiology, and clinician confidence before vs after BBM disclosure. Results A total of 450 patients (mean [SD] age, 66 [10] years; 183 [41%] female; mean [SD] MMSE score, 25 [5]) were enrolled. Among 356 patients (79%) with AD as the primary suspected etiology, assessment of BBM classified 149 patients (42%) as high, 101 patients (28%) as intermediate, and 106 patients (30%) as low probability of AD. Median (IQR) diagnostic confidence in the total cohort increased from 80% (70%-90%) to 90% (70%-90%) after BBM disclosure (P Conclusions and relevance In this prospective diagnostic study, a BBM panel was associated with altered etiologic diagnoses in a few patients and was associated with increased diagnostic confidence overall. These findings suggest that BBM may help refine the diagnostic process within specialized academic memory clinics.

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

APA 7th

Vigneswaran, S., Verberk, I. M. W., Boonkamp, L., In 't Veld, L., Koel-Simmelink, M. J. A., Antwi-Berko, D., et al. (2026). Plasma Alzheimer Biomarkers and Diagnostic Decision-Making in Memory Clinics. JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.28864

Vancouver

Vigneswaran S, Verberk IMW, Boonkamp L, In 't Veld L, Koel-Simmelink MJA, Antwi-Berko D, et al. Plasma Alzheimer Biomarkers and Diagnostic Decision-Making in Memory Clinics. JAMA Network Open. 2026. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.28864. PMID: 42593792.

BibTeX

@article{vigneswaran2026-42593792,
  author  = {Vigneswaran, S. and Verberk, I. M. W. and Boonkamp, L. and In 't Veld, L. and Koel-Simmelink, M. J. A. and Antwi-Berko, D. and van Unen, L. and Rousset, R. and Claessen, T. and Zwan, M. D. and Ossenkoppele, R. and Wilson, D. and others},
  title   = {{Plasma Alzheimer Biomarkers and Diagnostic Decision-Making in Memory Clinics}},
  journal = {JAMA Network Open},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.28864},
  pmid    = {42593792},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.28864}
}

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

Objective To evaluate how a tailored plasma BBM panel (phosphorylated tau 181 [pTau181], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], and neurofilament light chain [NfL]) during multidisciplinary diagnostic meetings is associated with syndrome diagnosis, suspected etiology, and clinician confidence.
When available, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) results were subsequently shown.
Results A total of 450 patients (mean [SD] age, 66 [10] years; 183 [41%] female; mean [SD] MMSE score, 25 [5]) were enrolled.
Median (IQR) diagnostic confidence in the total cohort increased from 80% (70%-90%) to 90% (70%-90%) after BBM disclosure (P < .001), increasing in 207 patients (46%), unchanged in 175 patients (39%), and decreasing in 68 patients (15%).
These findings suggest that BBM may help refine the diagnostic process within specialized academic memory clinics.

Why it matters

This prospective diagnostic study looked at how a plasma biomarker panel of pTau181, GFAP, and NfL presented during multidisciplinary meetings related to syndrome diagnosis, suspected etiology, and clinician confidence in memory clinics. It is a cohort study of 450 patients, and the text provided does not state whether the panel changed diagnoses or confidence.

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

Study details

Study designcohort
Participants450
Effect sizeMedian diagnostic confidence 80% to 90%; etiology revised in 5%
Evidence strengthModerate

Limitations

Participating clinics differed substantially in patient populations and diagnostic complexity, which may have influenced performance estimates; CSF and amyloid PET were not obtained in all participants and were likely done preferentially in diagnostically complex cases; blood markers were applied to all attendees including those with subjective cognitive decline or very high pre-test confidence, which may have reduced the observable added value.

How this study scored 52/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on free to read, so that was left out: it earned 51 of the 98 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA Network Open)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Network Open: journal h-index 235 (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	2 / 4	450 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, 2026-10-10)
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	2 / 4	Last-listed author Argonde C. van Harten: h-index 24 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Erasmus MC: institution h-index 1,321 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 10 institution(s) in 3 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42593792)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	51 / 98	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 51 of the 98 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total	52 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 21.

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “cerebrospinal”

821 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 821 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →