Takaisin

Are blood-based biomarkers accurate in detecting Alzheimer’s disease?

Näytönastekatsaukset
Miia Aro
8.4.2026

Level of evidence: C

In cognitively impaired individuals evaluated in specialized care settings, blood-based biomarkers (Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau217, %p-tau217, p-tau181, and p-tau231) might have clinically meaningful diagnostic accuracy for detecting Alzheimer’s disease pathology when compared with amyloid PET, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, or neuropathology. The highest and most consistent diagnostic performance is observed for p-tau217 and %p-tau217.

The certainty of the evidence is limited by risk of bias and heterogeneity across studies and assay platforms; therefore, blood-based biomarkers should be interpreted in conjunction with clinical assessment and assay-specific characteristics.

Table 1. Description of the included studies
Reference Study type Population Intervention and comparison Outcomes Risk of bias [Table «Additional comments for included studies...»2. Additional comments]
SR=systematic review; MA=meta-analysis
«Pahlke S, Kahale LA, Mahinrad S, et al. Blood-base...»1 SR/MA Cognitively impaired individuals (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) evaluated in specialized care settings (memory clinics, tertiary/specialty care). A total of 49 observational studies were included. Intervention: Blood-based biomarkers Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau217, %p-tau217, p-tau181, and p-tau231 measured using immunoassays or mass spectrometry. Comparison: Reference standards consisting of amyloid PET, cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer's disease biomarkers, or neuropathology Diagnostic test accuracy outcomes including sensitivity and specificity Low
Table 2. Additional comments for included studies
Reference Comments
«Pahlke S, Kahale LA, Mahinrad S, et al. Blood-base...»1 Mean age ranged from 62.6 to 85.9 years; both sexes represented. Studies were conducted in Europe, North America, and Asia. There were risk of bias in almost all studies, including due to patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. The fold change between
biomarker concentrations in amyloid-positive versus amyloid-negative
individuals, and this was not accounted for.

Results

Reference Number of studies and number of patients (I/C) Follow-up time Absolute number of events (%) I Absolute number of events (%) C Pooled effect range
Level of evidence: low
The quality of evidence is downgraded due to various study limitations and imprecision
I= intervention; C=comparison;
Aβ42/Aβ40 Up to 11 assays across multiple studies (total n ≈ several thousand) Cross-sectional NR NR sensitivity 59–90 %
specificity 61–83%
p-tau217 Up to 7 assay platforms across multiple studies Cross-sectional NR NR sensitivity 49–91 %
specificity 75–97%
%p-tau217 2 assay platforms (IP-MS based), multiple studies Cross-sectional NR NR sensitivity 89–91%
specificity 86–92%
p-tau181 48 assay platforms across multiple studies) Cross-sectional NR NR sensitivity 67–86% specificity 68–89%
p-tau231 Single assay platform (multiple studies) Cross-sectional NR NR sensitivity 82% specificity 82%

References

  1. Pahlke S, Kahale LA, Mahinrad S, et al. Blood-based biomarkers for detecting Alzheimer's disease pathology in cognitively impaired individuals within specialized care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Alzheimers Dement 2025;21(11):e70828 «PMID: 41193403»PubMed