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 45 out of 100. Tau biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Background Alzheimer disease (AD) is characterized by amyloid-β plaques (A), tau tangles (T), and neurodegeneration (N), collectively defining the ATN framework. While imaging biomarkers are well-established, the prognostic value of plasma biomarkers in predicting cognitive decline remains underexplored. This study compares plasma and imaging A/T/N biomarkers in predicting cognitive decline and evaluate the impact of combining biomarkers across modalities.

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

APA 7th

Yim, S., Gu, Y., Kang, H., Shin, D., Jang, H., Yoo, H., et al. (2025). Prognostic Value of A/T/N Biomarkers: Comparing Plasma and Imaging Modalities in Alzheimer Disease. Clinical nuclear medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000006088

Vancouver

Yim S, Gu Y, Kang H, Shin D, Jang H, Yoo H, et al. Prognostic Value of A/T/N Biomarkers: Comparing Plasma and Imaging Modalities in Alzheimer Disease. Clinical nuclear medicine. 2025. doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000006088. PMID: 40910876.

BibTeX

@article{yim2025-40910876,
  author  = {Yim, S. and Gu, Y. and Kang, H. and Shin, D. and Jang, H. and Yoo, H. and Zetterberg, H. and Blennow, K. and others},
  title   = {{Prognostic Value of A/T/N Biomarkers: Comparing Plasma and Imaging Modalities in Alzheimer Disease}},
  journal = {Clinical nuclear medicine},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1097/rlu.0000000000006088},
  pmid    = {40910876},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1097/rlu.0000000000006088}
}

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

Why it matters

This study compared plasma and imaging A/T/N biomarkers for predicting cognitive decline and assessed combining them across modalities. It is about prognosis and biomarker use, not about treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 1 of 4; Study design 7 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; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 1 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 1 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multicenter collaboration 3 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 43 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.43 of the 96 points we could judge = 45 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 43 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical nuclear medicine)
Journal's citation record 1 / 4 Clinical Nuclear Medicine: journal h-index 90 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same 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 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)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 1 / 7 Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.3 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year 1 / 6 Cited 0.6× 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 1 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration 3 / 3 OpenAlex lists 35 institution(s) in 7 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40910876)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 43 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 100 —

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 35.

Related studies in Tau 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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Tau biomarkers

See all studies in Tau biomarkers →