Comparison of brain-derived versus conventional pTau biomarkers in CSF and plasma for detecting Alzheimer’s disease

Clicks: 12
ID: 331633
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #170 of 194 articles by views in Brain communications

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 194 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Brain-derived phosphorylated tau species are postulated to improve the detection of Alzheimer’s disease pathology by mitigating non-specific increases. However, their true diagnostic performance, relative to conventional CSF and plasma phosphorylated tau assays, remains uncharacterized. The objective was to compare the diagnostic performance of brain-derived and conventional phosphorylated tau assays across multiple analytes (phosphorylated tau 181, phosphorylated tau 217, phosphorylated tau 231) in CSF and plasma, and to examine biomarker differences across amyloid-β status and cognitive groups. This study included 1,098 participants with amyloid-PET imaging and CSF samples from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, and a subset of 925 individuals with plasma samples. Diagnostic performance of brain-derived and conventional phosphorylated tau assays was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves, with calculation of area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and optimal cutpoints. Associations with amyloid-β burden were evaluated using Spearman correlations, and fold-changes between amyloid-PET-positive and amyloid-PET-negative participants were computed in cognitively unimpaired and cognitively impaired subgroups with 95% confidence intervals from 2,000 bootstrap resamples. Brain-derived phosphorylated tau assays showed significantly higher diagnostic performance than conventional phosphorylated tau assays at the same phosphorylation site in both CSF and plasma in the overall sample and in cognitively impaired individuals, except for CSF phosphorylated tau 217. While CSF brain-derived phosphorylated tau correlations with amyloid-PET were similar to conventional CSF assays, pairwise comparisons using DeLong’s test revealed significantly higher diagnostic accuracy for brain-derived assays. Receiver operating characteristic performance was generally better in cognitively impaired participants than in cognitively unimpaired participants. Additionally, using a three-range method with cutpoints corresponding to 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity, plasma brain-derived phosphorylated tau 181, phosphorylated tau 217, and brain-derived phosphorylated tau 217 had <20% of participants in the intermediate range overall and in cognitively impaired individuals. In summary, brain-derived phosphorylated tau assays improve detection of amyloid-β positivity relative to conventional assays, especially in plasma, and provide robust differentiation of amyloid-PET-positive and amyloid-PET-negative participants. If these findings are confirmed using fully automated diagnostic platforms that are intended for use in clinical settings, brain-derived phosphorylated tau assays may support future blood-based biomarker triage workflows for identifying Alzheimer’s disease.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220830475 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Lydia Trudel, Joseph Therriault, Valentina Ghisays, Arthur C. Macedo, Serge Gauthier, Paolo Vitali, Andrea L Benedet, Henrik Zetterberg, Yi Su, Alpana Singh, Tainà Marques, Marisa N. Denkinger, Nicholas T. Seyfried, Allan I Levey, Michael Weiner, Kendall Van Keuren-Jensen, Eric M. Reiman, Nicholas J. Ashton, Pedro Rosa‐Neto
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Brain communications
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/braincomms/fcag376
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcag376
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.