Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Serum brain-derived p-tau 217 and SV2A Reduce Peripheral Interference in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multicohort Study
Ma M, Wang H, Lian X, Li J, Gao N, Liu J, Sun X, Wang K et al.. medRxiv, 2026-07-30
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Importance Recently, increasing studies have demonstrated that blood p-tau 217, the most promising diagnostic biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), is increased and originated from muscle damage in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients. These findings suggested that blood total p-tau 217 may partly derive from muscle damage. Results Serum brain-derived p-tau 217 was significantly increased in AD patients compared to ALS patients, DDCs, LMNDCs and CIHCs, while serum p-tau 217 was significantly increased in both ALS patients and AD patients compared to DDCs, LMNDCs and CIHCs after familywise error correction ( p < 0.05). Serum SV2A was significantly decreased in AD patients than in other groups. Conclusions and Relevance Our findings suggest that serum brain-derived p-tau 217 and SV2A are more specific diagnostic biomarkers for reflecting brain damage and may not be disturbed by peripheral damage for AD patients. Moreover, we suggest that serum p-tau 217 is a specific LMN damage biomarker for ALS patients. Findings Serum brain-derived p-tau 217 was significantly increased in AD patients compared to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients, other lower motor neuron disease controls (LMNDCs), dementia controls (DDCs), and cognitively intact healthy controls (CIHCs), while serum p-tau 217 was significantly increased in both ALS patients and AD patients compared to DDCs, LMNDCs and CIHCs. Meaning Our findings first suggest that blood brain-derived p-tau 217 is likely a more ideal diagnostic biomarker with less peripheral interference than total p-tau 217 for AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ma, M., Wang, H., Lian, X., Li, J., Gao, N., Liu, J., et al. (2026). Serum brain-derived p-tau 217 and SV2A Reduce Peripheral Interference in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multicohort Study. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.28.26359122
Vancouver
Ma M, Wang H, Lian X, Li J, Gao N, Liu J, et al. Serum brain-derived p-tau 217 and SV2A Reduce Peripheral Interference in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multicohort Study. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.07.28.26359122.
BibTeX
@article{ma2026-d16a4c7b,
author = {Ma, M. and Wang, H. and Lian, X. and Li, J. and Gao, N. and Liu, J. and Sun, X. and Wang, K. and others},
title = {{Serum brain-derived p-tau 217 and SV2A Reduce Peripheral Interference in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multicohort Study}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.07.28.26359122},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.28.26359122}
}
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
- Importance Recently, increasing studies have demonstrated that blood p-tau 217, the most promising diagnostic biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), is increased and originated from muscle damage in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients.
- These findings suggested that blood total p-tau 217 may partly derive from muscle damage.
- Results Serum brain-derived p-tau 217 was significantly increased in AD patients compared to ALS patients, DDCs, LMNDCs and CIHCs, while serum p-tau 217 was significantly increased in both ALS patients and AD patients compared to DDCs, LMNDCs and CIHCs after familywise error correction ( p < 0.05).
- Serum SV2A was significantly decreased in AD patients than in other groups.
- Conclusions and Relevance Our findings suggest that serum brain-derived p-tau 217 and SV2A are more specific diagnostic biomarkers for reflecting brain damage and may not be disturbed by peripheral damage for AD patients.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants1,198
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 40 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,198 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 Getting a diagnosis
Also tagged “neurofilament”
696 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 696 tagged studies.