Home › Research › Biomarkers
The Alzheimer's Association Global Biomarker Standardization Consortium (GBSC) plasma phospho-tau Round Robin study
Ashton NJ, Keshavan A, Brum WS, Andreasson U, Arslan B, Droescher M, Barghorn S, Vanbrabant J et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2025-02-05
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Introduction The Alzheimer's Association Global Biomarker Standardization Consortium conducted a blinded case-control study to learn which phosphorylated tau (p-tau) assays provide the largest fold-changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) versus non-AD and show commutability in measuring patient samples and candidate certified reference materials (CRMs). Methods Thirty-three different p-tau assays measured paired plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from 40 participants (25 with "AD pathology" and 15 with "non-AD pathology" by CSF amyloid beta [Aβ]42/Aβ40 and p-tau181 criteria). Four CRMs were assessed. Results Plasma p-tau217 demonstrated higher fold-changes between AD and non-AD than other p-tau epitopes. Fujirebio LUMIPULSE G, UGOT IPMS, and Lilly MSD p-tau217 provided the highest fold-changes. Plasma p-tau217 showed the strongest correlations between plasma assays (rho = 0.81-0.97). The CRMs were not commutable across assays. Discussion Plasma p-tau217 showed larger fold-changes and better accuracy for detecting AD pathology in symptomatic individuals, with greater cross-platform agreement than other p-tau variants. Further work is needed to develop suitable CRMs facilitating cross-assay standardization. Highlights Paired plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from twenty-five Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 15 non-AD patients were measured blind. Thirty-three plasma assays were compared, for phosphorylated tau-181 (p-tau181), 205, 212, 217 and 231. Plasma p-tau217 consistently had the highest fold-change and was best correlated between assays. Plasma-CSF correlations were weak to moderate. There was lack of commutability for four candidate reference materials.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ashton, N. J., Keshavan, A., Brum, W. S., Andreasson, U., Arslan, B., Droescher, M., et al. (2025). The Alzheimer's Association Global Biomarker Standardization Consortium (GBSC) plasma phospho-tau Round Robin study. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14508
Vancouver
Ashton NJ, Keshavan A, Brum WS, Andreasson U, Arslan B, Droescher M, et al. The Alzheimer's Association Global Biomarker Standardization Consortium (GBSC) plasma phospho-tau Round Robin study. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.14508. PMID: 39907496.
BibTeX
@article{ashton2025-39907496,
author = {Ashton, N. J. and Keshavan, A. and Brum, W. S. and Andreasson, U. and Arslan, B. and Droescher, M. and Barghorn, S. and Vanbrabant, J. and others},
title = {{The Alzheimer's Association Global Biomarker Standardization Consortium (GBSC) plasma phospho-tau Round Robin study}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/alz.14508},
pmid = {39907496},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14508}
}
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
- Introduction The Alzheimer's Association Global Biomarker Standardization Consortium conducted a blinded case-control study to learn which phosphorylated tau (p-tau) assays provide the largest fold-changes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) versus non-AD and show commutability in measuring patient samples and candidate certified reference materials (CRMs).
- Results Plasma p-tau217 demonstrated higher fold-changes between AD and non-AD than other p-tau epitopes.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Study designcase-control study
- Participants40
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 69/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for effect reported 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 6 / 12 | A case-control study |
| 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 | 1 / 4 | 40 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 | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39907496) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 40 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100. |
| Total | 69 / 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “neurofilament”
697 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 697 tagged studies.