Home › Research › Biomarkers
Simulation of Alzheimer's diagnostic flows with blood biomarker test options in Japan
Ataru Igarashi, Noriyuki Kimura, Takuya Ataka, Temmei Ito, Kotaro Sasaki, Chizuru Kobayashi, Mayaka Tani, Yukinori Sakata et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2025-10-07
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
The maximum mean wait time under the current workflow was projected at 6.4 months, decreasing with BBM integration. The number of treatment-eligible patients increased considerably with BBM-based confirmatory diagnostics. BBM triage testing reduced wait times but temporarily increased treatment-eligible patients. Replacing positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid with BBM-based diagnostics may increase treatment eligibility because of lower costs, driving higher demand for testing. HIGHLIGHTS: A dynamic simulation models Alzheimer's diagnostic workflows in Japan.Blood biomarker (BBM) tests reduce diagnostic wait times for Alzheimer's in Japan.Implementing BBM tests improves access to Alzheimer's diagnostics.Study quantifies demand for diagnostic testing based on costs and accessibility.Testing costs impact the number of treatment-eligible Alzheimer's patients.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Igarashi, A., Kimura, N., Ataka, T., Ito, T., Sasaki, K., Kobayashi, C., et al. (2025). Simulation of Alzheimer's diagnostic flows with blood biomarker test options in Japan. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.70157
Vancouver
Igarashi A, Kimura N, Ataka T, Ito T, Sasaki K, Kobayashi C, et al. Simulation of Alzheimer's diagnostic flows with blood biomarker test options in Japan. Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). 2025. doi:10.1002/trc2.70157. PMID: 41070364.
BibTeX
@article{igarashi2025-41070364,
author = {Igarashi, Ataru and Kimura, Noriyuki and Ataka, Takuya and Ito, Temmei and Sasaki, Kotaro and Kobayashi, Chizuru and Tani, Mayaka and Sakata, Yukinori and others},
title = {{Simulation of Alzheimer's diagnostic flows with blood biomarker test options in Japan}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (New York, N. Y.)},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/trc2.70157},
pmid = {41070364},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.70157}
}
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
- The maximum mean wait time under the current workflow was projected at 6.4 months, decreasing with BBM integration.
- The number of treatment-eligible patients increased considerably with BBM-based confirmatory diagnostics.
- BBM triage testing reduced wait times but temporarily increased treatment-eligible patients.
- Replacing positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid with BBM-based diagnostics may increase treatment eligibility because of lower costs, driving higher demand for testing.
- HIGHLIGHTS: A dynamic simulation models Alzheimer's diagnostic workflows in Japan.Blood biomarker (BBM) tests reduce diagnostic wait times for Alzheimer's in Japan.Implementing BBM tests improves access to Alzheimer's diagnostics.Study quantifies demand for diagnostic testing based on costs and accessibility.Testing costs impact the number of treatment-eligible Alzheimer's patients.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” 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 | — / 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41070364) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 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
Also tagged “p-tau217”
692 studies in the library carry the topic tag “p-tau217”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 692 tagged studies.