Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis in primary and secondary care using a fully automated platform
Sebastian Palmqvist, Noëlle Warmenhoven, Federica Anastasi, Andrea Pilotto, and colleagues (multi-site Swedish, Spanish and Italian collaboration). Nature Medicine, 2025
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
This large multi-country study tested a fully automated, commercially available blood test (Lumipulse platform, measuring p-tau217) in nearly 1,800 people across memory clinics and, notably, primary care doctors' offices in Sweden, Spain, and Italy. The test correctly classified Alzheimer's-related amyloid pathology roughly 85-94% of the time depending on setting and cutoff approach used, and using two cutoffs instead of one could cut CSF testing costs by up to 60%.
What this study adds
Evidence grade: High
This is a cross-sectional study of 1,767 participants. A fully automated blood test classified Alzheimer's amyloid pathology correctly in roughly 85-94% of people, including in primary care settings, and a two-cutoff approach could cut confirmatory spinal fluid testing by up to 60%. Reported effect size: Accuracy 89-94% (secondary/memory-clinic care), 85-92% (primary care); AUC 0.93-0.96.
Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Palmqvist, S., Warmenhoven, N., Anastasi, F., & Pilotto, A. (2025). Plasma phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis in primary and secondary care using a fully automated platform. Nature Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03622-w
Vancouver
Palmqvist S, Warmenhoven N, Anastasi F, Pilotto A. Plasma phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis in primary and secondary care using a fully automated platform. Nature Medicine. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-03622-w. PMID: 40205199.
BibTeX
@article{palmqvist2025-407e7d7f,
author = {Palmqvist, Sebastian and Warmenhoven, Noëlle and Anastasi, Federica and Pilotto, Andrea},
title = {{Plasma phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis in primary and secondary care using a fully automated platform}},
journal = {Nature Medicine},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1038/s41591-025-03622-w},
pmid = {40205199},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03622-w}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- 1,767 participants across 5 cohorts, including a primary care cohort (n=548)
- Accuracy: 89-94% in secondary/memory clinic care, 85-92% in primary care
- AUC values of 0.93-0.96 across cohorts
- Accuracy dropped somewhat in patients 80 years and older (83%)
- Two-cutoff strategy could reduce need for confirmatory CSF testing by up to 60%
Why it matters
A fully automated blood test classified Alzheimer's amyloid pathology correctly in roughly 85-94% of people, including in primary care settings, and a two-cutoff approach could cut confirmatory spinal fluid testing by up to 60%. This is a cross-sectional diagnostic study, so it shows the test can help identify disease but does not treat or prevent it.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants1,767
- Effect sizeAccuracy 89-94% (secondary/memory-clinic care), 85-92% (primary care); AUC 0.93-0.96
- Evidence strengthHigh
Limitations
Accuracy dropped in patients 80 years and older (83%); multi-cohort design with varying reference standards across sites.
How this study scored 68/100
Published in a top-tier journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for randomized / blinded and indexed in PubMed 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, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 68 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Nature Medicine) |
| 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 | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” 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 | 3 / 4 | 1,767 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 42 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 68 out of 100. |
| Total | 68 / 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 from nearby years
Also tagged “phosphorylated”
732 studies in the library carry the topic tag “phosphorylated”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 732 tagged studies.