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.

60/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Introduction We integrated plasma biomarkers from the Taiwan Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and propose a workflow to identify individuals showing amyloid-positive positron emission tomography (PET) with low/intermediate tau burden based on [18F]Florzolotau PET-based quantification. Methods We assessed 361 participants across the Alzheimer's disease (AD) and non-AD continuum and measured plasma phosphorylated tau (p-tau)217, p-tau181, amyloid beta (Aβ)42/40 ratio, neurofilament light chain, and glial fibrillary acidic protein levels at two medical centers. We evaluated the diagnostic potential of these biomarkers. Results Among all plasma biomarkers, p-tau217 had the highest consistency with amyloid PET results (area under the curve = 0.94), and a cutoff value could have reduced the number of confirmatory amyloid PET scans by 57.5%. In amyloid PET-positive cases intending to use anti-amyloid therapy, p-tau217 level, along with clinical parameters, had the highest predictive ability for low/intermediate tau burden. Discussion A two-step workflow based on p-tau217 and confirmatory amyloid PET could accurately classify AD patients showing low/intermediate tau burden. Highlights The emergence of anti-amyloid therapy increases the need to accurately diagnose Alzheimer's disease (AD). The use of plasma biomarkers, especially phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217), can help in the diagnosis of AD. P-tau217 is a better predictor of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) positivity than other core biomarkers. In amyloid PET-positive individuals, p-tau217 can predict tau burden. We propose a two-step workflow to identify AD cases suitable for treatment.

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

APA 7th

Huang, K. L., Hsiao, I. T., Huang, C. W., Huang, C. G., Chang, H. I., Huang, S. H., et al. (2025). The Taiwan-ADNI workflow toward integrating plasma p-tau217 into prediction models for the risk of Alzheimer's disease and tau burden. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14297

Vancouver

Huang KL, Hsiao IT, Huang CW, Huang CG, Chang HI, Huang SH, et al. The Taiwan-ADNI workflow toward integrating plasma p-tau217 into prediction models for the risk of Alzheimer's disease and tau burden. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.14297. PMID: 39777990.

BibTeX

@article{huang2025-39777990,
  author  = {Huang, K. L. and Hsiao, I. T. and Huang, C. W. and Huang, C. G. and Chang, H. I. and Huang, S. H. and Lin, K. J. and Ma, M. C. and others},
  title   = {{The Taiwan-ADNI workflow toward integrating plasma p-tau217 into prediction models for the risk of Alzheimer's disease and tau burden}},
  journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz.14297},
  pmid    = {39777990},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.14297}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 361 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record reports “57.5%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results Among all plasma biomarkers, p-tau217 had the highest consistency with amyloid PET results (area under the curve = 0.94), and a cutoff value could have reduced the number of confirmatory amyloid PET scans by 57.5%.

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

Study details

Participants361
Effect size57.5%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 60/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 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	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	2 / 4	361 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
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 39777990)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	35 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100.
Total	60 / 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.

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

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also tagged “integrating”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “integrating”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →