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.

58/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 58 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

The optimal cut-offs differed between CU and CI groups. In the CI group, diagnostic accuracy was consistently high across all subgroups, meeting confirmatory test standards with sensitivity and specificity ≥90%. In the CU group, the appropriate standards varied by subgroup. Participants aged <65 years required alternative cut-offs to improve sensitivity to 85.0% and maintain specificity at 95.7%. Plasma p-tau217 demonstrated robust diagnostic accuracy across CI subgroups and highlighted the importance of tailored cut-off thresholds for CU populations. These findings support the integration of plasma p-tau217 into clinical workflows for AD diagnostics, emphasising its potential for early detection and risk stratification.

Key findings

The optimal cut-offs differed between CU and CI groups.
In the CI group, diagnostic accuracy was consistently high across all subgroups, meeting confirmatory test standards with sensitivity and specificity ≥90%.
In the CU group, the appropriate standards varied by subgroup.
Participants aged <65 years required alternative cut-offs to improve sensitivity to 85.0% and maintain specificity at 95.7%.
Plasma p-tau217 demonstrated robust diagnostic accuracy across CI subgroups and highlighted the importance of tailored cut-off thresholds for CU populations.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Effect size85.0%; 95.7%
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 58/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people 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 and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 59 points we could judge it on, which is 58 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry)
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	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	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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	2 / 3	PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40413031)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	34 / 59	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 59 points we could judge it on is 58 out of 100.
Total	58 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Ahn, J., Lee, E. H., Yoo, H., Shin, D., Kang, H., Yim, S., et al. (2025). Tailoring thresholds for interpreting plasma p-tau217 levels. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2025-335830

Vancouver

Ahn J, Lee EH, Yoo H, Shin D, Kang H, Yim S, et al. Tailoring thresholds for interpreting plasma p-tau217 levels. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2025. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2025-335830. PMID: 40413031.

BibTeX

@article{ahn2025-40413031,
  author  = {Ahn, Jehyun and Lee, Eun Hye and Yoo, Heejin and Shin, Daeun and Kang, Heekyoung and Yim, Sohyun and Kim, Seongmi and Kim, Kyoungmin and others},
  title   = {{Tailoring thresholds for interpreting plasma p-tau217 levels}},
  journal = {Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1136/jnnp-2025-335830},
  pmid    = {40413031},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2025-335830}
}

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also tagged “blood-based”

698 studies in the library carry the topic tag “blood-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 698 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →