Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma p-tau217, quantified by the fully automated LUMIPULSE G platform, outperforms p-tau181 in predicting amyloid pathology in cognitive complaints patients
Anuschka Silva-Spínola, João Durães, João Pedro Guedes de Oliveira, Miguel Tábuas-Pereira, Marisa Lima, Alexandre de Mendonça, Isabel Santana, Inês Baldeiras. Scientific reports, 2026-01-15
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau) biomarkers offer a minimally invasive alternative for detecting Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of plasma p-tau217 relative to p-tau181 using the fully automated LUMIPULSE platform. A total of 494 consecutively recruited patients with cognitive complaints from the Coimbra cohort were divided into exploratory and internal validation sets, and an external set of 100 well-characterized patients with mild cognitive impairment was obtained from Lisbon. Plasma biomarkers were assessed in relation to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD biomarkers and evaluated their ability to detect amyloid pathology, defined by the CSF Aβ42/40 ratio. In the exploratory dataset, plasma p-tau217 showed stronger correlations with CSF biomarkers and higher accuracy in identifying amyloid positivity than p-tau181 (AUC = 0.90 vs. 0.81, p < 0.001). Age and blood urea nitrogen had minimal influence on p-tau217’s performance. Applying the Youden-derived single p-tau217 cutoff achieved an overall agreement of 88% with CSF-defined amyloid status across both validation sets. In addition, we evaluated a two-cutoff framework (95% sensitivity/specificity), which reduced misclassification and confined fewer than 30% of individuals to an intermediate, confirmatory-testing zone. These findings support the potential of plasma p-tau217 as a scalable blood-based biomarker that can aid triage and diagnostic decision-making in AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Silva-Spínola, A., Durães, J., de Oliveira, J. P. G., Tábuas-Pereira, M., Lima, M., de Mendonça, A., et al. (2026). Plasma p-tau217, quantified by the fully automated LUMIPULSE G platform, outperforms p-tau181 in predicting amyloid pathology in cognitive complaints patients. Scientific reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34241-7
Vancouver
Silva-Spínola A, Durães J, de Oliveira JPG, Tábuas-Pereira M, Lima M, de Mendonça A, et al. Plasma p-tau217, quantified by the fully automated LUMIPULSE G platform, outperforms p-tau181 in predicting amyloid pathology in cognitive complaints patients. Scientific reports. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-34241-7. PMID: 41535718.
BibTeX
@article{silvaspinola2026-41535718,
author = {Silva-Spínola, Anuschka and Durães, João and de Oliveira, João Pedro Guedes and Tábuas-Pereira, Miguel and Lima, Marisa and de Mendonça, Alexandre and Santana, Isabel and Baldeiras, Inês},
title = {{Plasma p-tau217, quantified by the fully automated LUMIPULSE G platform, outperforms p-tau181 in predicting amyloid pathology in cognitive complaints patients}},
journal = {Scientific reports},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-025-34241-7},
pmid = {41535718},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34241-7}
}
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
- Applying the Youden-derived single p-tau217 cutoff achieved an overall agreement of 88% with CSF-defined amyloid status across both validation sets.
- These findings support the potential of plasma p-tau217 as a scalable blood-based biomarker that can aid triage and diagnostic decision-making in AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants494
- Effect sizeAUC = 0.90
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 63/100
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 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Scientific reports) |
| 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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 494 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 41535718) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 35 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100. |
| Total | 63 / 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 “neurofilament”
697 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 697 tagged studies.