4.7 Article

Test-retest variability of plasma biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease and its effects on clinical prediction models

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 797-806

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.12706

关键词

diagnosis; gray zones; plasma biomarkers; random error; test-retest variability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that blood-based biomarkers have high performance in clinical prediction of Alzheimer's disease, with p-tau217 performing the best. Test-retest variability has some impact on the performance of biomarkers, but it has less effect on models with p-tau217. Further testing is recommended for individuals with unstable predicted outcomes.
INTRODUCTION The effect of random error on the performance of blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) must be determined before clinical implementation. METHODS We measured test-retest variability of plasma amyloid beta (A beta)42/A beta 40, neurofilament light (NfL), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau)217 and simulated effects of this variability on biomarker performance when predicting either cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) A beta status or conversion to AD dementia in 399 non-demented participants with cognitive symptoms. RESULTS Clinical performance was highest when combining all biomarkers. Among single-biomarkers, p-tau217 performed best. Test-retest variability ranged from 4.1% (A beta 42/A beta 40) to 25% (GFAP). This variability reduced the performance of the biomarkers (approximate to Delta AUC [area under the curve] -1% to -4%) with the least effects on models with p-tau217. The percent of individuals with unstable predicted outcomes was lowest for the multi-biomarker combination (14%). DISCUSSION Clinical prediction models combining plasma biomarkers-particularly p-tau217-exhibit high performance and are less effected by random error. Individuals with unstable predicted outcomes (gray zone) should be recommended for further tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据