Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Sixty-nine HC, 13 preclinical AD, 38 AD-MCI, 44 AD-D, and 79 non-AD CI participants were included. The area under the curves (AUCs) for predicting Aβ PET status were 0.937 (Aβ42/40), 0.926 (p-tau217), and 0.946 (p-tau217/Aβ42); results of pair-wise DeLong tests revealed no significant differences among these three metrics (all p > 0.05). In the cognitively normal group, the AUCs were 0.968 (Aβ42/40), 0.958 (p-tau217), and 0.979 (p-tau217/Aβ42), while in the cognitively impaired group, they were 0.919 (Aβ42/40), 0.893 (p-tau217), and 0.923 (p-tau217/Aβ42). Among HC and AD continuum participants, CL correlations were - 0.74 (Aβ42/40), 0.81 (p-tau217), and 0.83 (p-tau217/Aβ42). In the HC and AD continuum, Aβ42/40 levels showed a bimodal distribution (cutoff = 0.096), with a shift from high to low occurring at 19.3 CL, compared to the PET positivity threshold of 32.9 CL. P-tau217 exhibited a linear increase with disease progression. All biomarkers correlated strongly with logical memory scores. Plasma biomarkers, Aβ42/40 and p-tau217, and particularly their ratio (p-tau217/Aβ42), show strong potential as Aβ PET alternatives for AD diagnosis. HISCL-based plasma Aβ42/40 detects Aβ accumulation earlier than Aβ PET visual reading threshold, underscoring its utility as an early diagnostic marker.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 54/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 30 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 54 of 100. Total 54 of 100.30 of the 56 points we could judge = 54 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 54 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
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 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in 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 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 40483474)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 30 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 54 out of 100.
Total 54 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Kubota, M., Bun, S., Takahata, K., Kurose, S., Momota, Y., Iwabuchi, Y., et al. (2025). Plasma biomarkers for early detection of alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study in a Japanese cohort. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01778-8

Vancouver

Kubota M, Bun S, Takahata K, Kurose S, Momota Y, Iwabuchi Y, et al. Plasma biomarkers for early detection of alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study in a Japanese cohort. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2025. doi:10.1186/s13195-025-01778-8. PMID: 40483474.

BibTeX

@article{kubota2025-40483474,
  author  = {Kubota, Masahito and Bun, Shogyoku and Takahata, Keisuke and Kurose, Shin and Momota, Yuki and Iwabuchi, Yu and Tezuka, Toshiki and Tabuchi, Hajime and others},
  title   = {{Plasma biomarkers for early detection of alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study in a Japanese cohort}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1186/s13195-025-01778-8},
  pmid    = {40483474},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01778-8}
}

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “blood-based”

698 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 698 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →