Palmqvist, Sebastian

Abstract Background Sex, education and race/ethnicity are all associated with risk of Alzheimer's disease dementia. Here, we assess the effects of self‐reported sex, educational attainment and race/ethnicity on amyloid‐positivity, and tau‐PET‐positivity in 12,048 (7,394 cognitively unimpaired [CU], 2,177 MCI, and 2,477 dementia) individuals from 42 cohorts worldwide. Method Logistic generalized estimating equations were used to estimate frequency of amyloid‐positivity (using cohort‐specific thresholds for amyloid‐PET [84%] or CSF) and tau‐PET‐positivity (cohort‐specific thresholds of 2SD above mean temporal uptake in amyloid‐negative controls). We assessed: i) sex and APOEε4 ( N = 10,098) associations, to complement earlier findings of a higher frequency of tau‐positivity in females, ii) effects of lower/higher education ( N = 10,970; cohort‐specific median‐split), and iii) effects of race/ethnicity (non‐Hispanic White [hereafter: White], N = 4880; Asian, N = 116; Black or African‐American [hereafter: Black], N = 353; Hispanic, N = 356, only from Northern‐American cohorts). Outcomes were frequency of amyloid‐positivity in CU individuals only, and tau‐PET‐positivity in both amyloid‐positive (AB+) CU and cognitively impaired (CI, i.e. MCI and dementia) individuals. Interaction effects on the relationship between age and amyloid/tau‐positivity were assessed and only retained in the models when significant. Result Female sex was associated with an APOEε4 ‐independent increased frequency of amyloid‐positivity (β=0.51[0.22], p = 0.02) in CU and increase of tau‐positivity in both AB+CU (β=0.27[0.08]) and AB+CI (β=0.37[0.08], both p <0.01). Remarkably, tau‐positivity frequencies of female APOEε4 non‐carriers were equivalent to male APOEε4 carriers in AB+CI (Figure 1). No significant sex* APOE interactions were observed. In CU, higher education was associated with lower amyloid‐positivity frequency (β=‐0.12[0.05], p = 0.02). In contrast, among AB+CU, there was an age*education interaction effect that indicated more pronounced age effects on tau‐positivity in individuals with higher education (age*education:β interaction =0.03[0.01], p <0.01). There were no education effects in AB+CI (Figure 2). In CU, an age*race/ethnicity interaction effect was observed across all non‐White groups compared to White (Hispanic:β interaction =‐0.05[0.01], p <0.01; Black:‐0.04[0.01], p <0.01; Asian:‐0.02[0.01], p = 0.04). This suggests that the impact of age on amyloid‐positivity was less pronounced in non‐White groups. Furthermore, in AB+CI, Hispanic ethnicity was related to higher tau‐positivity frequency than White (β=0.51[0.22], p = 0.02; Figure 3). Conclusion In this multi‐center initiative comprised of clinical and community‐based cohorts, we observed that self‐reported sex, educational attainment and race/ethnicity were related to positivity‐frequencies of Alzheimer's disease pathology.

Abstract Background Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) seed amplification assays (SAAs) for detecting α‐synuclein (αsyn) seeds have recently emerged as robust in vivo biomarkers of Lewy body pathology (LBP). However, CSF sampling is invasive, costly, and time‐consuming, limiting its widespread use. We aimed to develop and evaluate a neuropathologically‐validated two‐step workflow, leveraging smell function and CSF αsyn SAA to accurately determine postmortem LBP status. This approach could reduce the number of confirmatory lumbar punctures needed (Figure 1). Methods The study included 358 individuals from the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders with antemortem smell testing, CSF αsyn SAA results, and postmortem neuropathological assessments of regional LBP burden. Step‐1 of the two‐step workflow involved a risk‐stratification model predicting postmortem cortical LBP‐positivity (LBP ctx , defined as at least mild pathology in any cortical region) using logistic regression models with University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) scores (smell testing), age, and sex as predictors. In step‐2, confirmatory CSF αsyn SAA testing was applied only to participants identified as high‐risk in step‐1. Workflow performance ‐ accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and reduction in CSF testing ‐ was evaluated in (i) the entire study cohort; (ii) patients with clinical parkinsonism; (iii) patients with an Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical syndrome; and (iv) clinically unimpaired (CU) individuals. Results Participants had a mean age at death of 86.2±7.8 years, 42.6% were female, 35.2% had LBP ctx , and the average time between UPSIT and death was 3.2±2.3 years (Table 1). Using a 95% sensitivity cut‐off for the UPSIT‐based algorithm, the two‐step workflow achieved high accuracy in identifying LBP ctx (whole cohort=94%; clinical parkinsonism=95%; clinical AD=94%; CU=93%; Figure 2a), while reducing CSF testing (whole cohort=‐43%; clinical parkinsonism=‐23%; clinical AD=‐35%; and CU=‐80%; Figure 2d). PPVs ranged from 75‐96% and were highest in the clinical parkinsonism subgroup (96%) where LBP ctx + was highest (62.7%). NPVs ranged between 95‐98% and were highest in the clinical AD subgroup (98%) (Figure 2b‐c). The two‐step approach reached accuracies similar to using CSF tests in all participants. Conclusions Implementing a two‐step workflow in different clinical scenarios may reduce invasive testing with CSF, minimizing the burden for individuals and costs for healthcare providers.

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to determine the predictive value of amyloid‐PET versus plasma %p‐tau217 (defined as the ratio of phosphorylated to non‐phosphorylated Tau217 × 100), Aβ42/40, and the amyloid probability score (APS2; which combines of Aβ42/40 and %p‐tau217) in tau‐PET transitions (T‐ to T+). Method Participants included were from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) and had plasma markers measured by mass spectrometry (IP‐MS; C2N), had an amyloid‐PET scan, and had a tau‐PET negative scan (SUVR<1.29, temporal meta‐ROI) at the baseline, along with one or more follow‐up tau‐PET scans. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the relationship between C2N plasma %P‐Tau217 and APS2 and incident tau‐PET positivity (SUVR>=1.29) adjusting for age, sex, and APOE ε4. An analysis was also performed using amyloid‐PET centiloid as the predictor. Both the plasma markers and amyloid‐PET centiloid were scaled so that a one‐unit change corresponds to the respective interquartile range (IQR) for comparability of hazard ratios (HR). The analyses were repeated in the BioFINDER‐2 cohort for validation. Result 255 MCSA participants (122 female [47.8%] were included with a median age of 71.9 (IQR: 65.8, 78.8) years old, of which 37 progressed to tau‐PET positivity. At baseline, 238 (93.7%) were cognitively unimpaired. Higher baseline %p‐tau217 (HR: 1.52 [95% CI: 1.28, 1.8]), amyloid‐PET centiloid (HR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.20, 1.79]), and APS2 (HR: 1.62 [95% CI: 1.22, 2.16]) were associated with an increased risk of progressing to tau‐PET positive (Figure 1). Aβ42/40 (HR: 1.06 [95% 0.604–1.867] was not associated with incident tau positivity Among 605 participants who were tau negative at index date in BioFINDER‐2 (316 (52.2%) cognitively unimpaired), with a median age of 70.2 (IQR: 60.5‐76.4), 33 progressed to tau positivity with higher %p‐tau217 (HR: 1.8 [95% CI: 1.5, 2.17]), amyloid‐PET centiloid (HR: 2.3 [95% CI: 1.77, 2.97]), and lower Aβ 42/40 (HR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.21, 0.85]) at index date all associated with an increased risk of progressing to tau‐PET positive. Conclusion In two independent cohorts , %p‐tau217 provides predictive information about those who will convert from tau negative to tau positive on PET scan with the associations being similar to amyloid‐PET.

Abstract Background In recent years, blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) have transformed the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with some now approaching readiness for clinical implementation. This progress aligns with the growing importance of accurate early diagnostics and availability of anti‐Aβ therapies for the treatment of early symptomatic AD, reinforcing the need for more rapid and early diagnostic capabilities. To address this need, the Alzheimer’s Association convened a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, subject‐matter specialists, and guideline methodologists to conduct a systematic review and develop evidence‐based recommendations for the use of BBMs in the diagnostic evaluation of AD. The scope of this guideline is focused on individuals with cognitive impairment ‐ either MCI or dementia ‐ who are undergoing diagnostic assessment in secondary or tertiary care settings. Method The panel conducted a systematic review to assess BBMs' diagnostic test accuracy in detecting amyloid pathology for triaging (≥90% sensitivity, ≥75% specificity) and confirmatory (≥90% sensitivity and specificity) diagnostic workup. The BBMs of interest included plasma p ‐tau and Aβ tests measuring the following analytes: p ‐tau217, % p ‐tau217, p ‐tau181, p ‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio. The reference standard tests included CSF, amyloid PET, or neuropathology examination. The panel applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the GRADE Evidence‐to‐Decision Framework to develop its recommendations. Result Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were evaluated. Using predefined decision thresholds, the panel determined whether each test has 1) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to be used as a triaging test where a positive test is to be confirmed by PET or CSF, 2) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy as a confirmatory test to replace PET or CSF, or 3) insufficient diagnostic test accuracy to recommend current use in clinical practice. Recommendations will be provided in case any BBMs met a priori DTA thresholds. Conclusion BBMs can improve early AD diagnosis and expand access to disease‐modifying therapies. Evidence‐based guidelines are key to standardizing their use and will be updated as new evidence and applications emerge.

Abstract BACKGROUND This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) for detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The overarching goal is to inform the development of a clinical practice guideline, led by the Alzheimer's Association, for use in clinical practice. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from January 2019 to November 2024. Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p‐tau217, %p‐tau217, p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. Pooled diagnostic test accuracy measures were calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Across a range of pre‐test probabilities, we evaluated how much a positive or a negative test result would lead to a change in the probability of having amyloid positivity (post‐test probability). All analyses were conducted for each test within each biomarker. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were examined. When evaluated using a single cut‐point, the diagnostic test accuracy varied considerably across tests: the pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.2–57.4) to 91.4% (95% CI: 86.6–94.6), and the pooled specificity ranged from 61.5% (95% CI: 45.6–75.3) to 96.7% (95% CI: 87.8–99.2). Differences in post‐test probability based on a range of pre‐test probabilities varied greatly across tests. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence across tests ranged from moderate to very low. Most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in domains related to patient selection, index test conduct, and reference standard. CONCLUSION This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs for detecting AD pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The findings serve as a foundation for an accompanying clinical practice guideline that provides evidence‐based recommendations for BBM use in the clinical diagnostic pathway. Given continuous developments in this rapidly evolving field, ongoing evaluation will be critical to ensure the synthesized evidence and clinical guidelines remain up to date and maintain clinical relevance. Highlights This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of blood‐based biomarker (BBM) tests specifically in individuals with objective cognitive impairment seen in specialized care settings. Across 49 studies, BBM test performance varied widely. Pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% to 91.4% and specificity from 61.5% to 96.7%, depending on the analyte and assay platform. This review followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence. This review served as the evidence base for the Alzheimer's Association's new clinical practice guidelines on BBMs, providing structured, evidence‐based guidance for implementing BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease. The review underscores that BBM test performance is assay‐ and platform specific and advises clinicians and laboratory directors to interpret results in the context of the specific test used and integrate the results with a comprehensive clinical assessment.

Importance Advances in Alzheimer disease (AD) have shifted research focus to earlier disease stages, necessitating more scalable approaches to identify cognitively unimpaired individuals with amyloid β (Aβ) pathology. Objective To assess the utility of plasma phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) for classifying Aβ status in cognitively unimpaired individuals, both as a stand-alone test and in a 2-step approach where positive plasma results were confirmed using a second modality (Aβ positron emission tomography [PET] or cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]). Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional cohort study used data collected between June 2009 and March 2024. We included 2916 cognitively unimpaired participants from 12 international independent observational cohorts in the US, Europe, Australia, and Canada with available plasma p-tau217 levels and CSF or PET Aβ biomarkers. Performance comparisons between mass spectrometry and immunoassay-based p-tau217 measurements were also performed (n = 964). Exposures Plasma p-tau217 levels measured by immunoassay. Main Outcome and Measures Aβ status, determined by CSF or Aβ PET biomarkers. Results Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. As a stand-alone test, plasma p-tau217 achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79% (95% CI, 74-84) and an overall accuracy of 81% (95% CI, 80-82). In a 2-step workflow, the PPV and accuracy significantly increased to 91% (95% CI, 86-95). While this approach required screening of 677 individuals with plasma p-tau217 to identify 100 Aβ-positive individuals, compared to 536 participants when using PET alone, it reduced the need for PET testing to 124. Immunoassays demonstrated comparable PPVs to mass spectrometry (80% [95% CI, 74-86] vs 85% [95% CI, 81-90]; P = .12) but significantly lower overall accuracy (82% [95% CI, 79-84]% vs 88 [95% CI, 86-90]; P &amp;lt; .001) and true Aβ-positive detection rate (49% [95% CI, 43-55] vs 69% [95% CI, 64-75]; P &amp;lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance The findings highlight the potential of plasma p-tau217 as a stand-alone test—or when used in a sequential 2-step approach alongside PET or CSF testing—as a cost-effective, scalable, and minimally burdensome strategy for identifying preclinical AD. Tailored screening workflows that incorporate p-tau217 can improve efficiency in participant selection for preclinical AD trials and, in the future, help guide access to disease-modifying treatments.

Objective The objective of this study was to determine the predictive value of amyloid‐positron emission tomography (PET) versus the plasma ratio of phosphorylated tau at threonine 217 (p‐tau217) to non‐phosphorylated tau217 (%p‐tau217) for tau‐PET transitions (T− to T+). The added value of combining plasma amyloid‐β 42 and amyloid‐β 40 (Aβ42/40) and %p‐tau217 into an amyloid probability score (APS2) was also assessed. Methods Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) participants had plasma markers measured at via mass spectrometry (MS), an amyloid‐PET scan, and a tau‐PET (meta‐temporal region of interest [ROI]) negative scan (standardized uptake value ratio [SUVR] <1.29) at the index (baseline) date, along with one or more follow‐up tau‐PET scans. The BioFINDER‐2 cohort was used for validation. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, and apolipoprotein ( APOE ) ε4 were used to assess predictors, with scaling to the interquartile range (IQR) for comparability of hazard ratios (HR). Results Among 255 tau‐PET negative MCSA participants (median age: 71.9 years), 37 converted to tau‐PET positive (median follow‐up time: 3.81 years). Higher %p‐tau217 (HR: 1.52 [95% CI: 1.28–1.80]), amyloid‐PET centiloid (HR: 1.47 [95% CI: 1.20–1.79]), and APS2 (HR: 1.62 [95% CI: 1.22–2.16]) predicted tau‐PET conversion. However, Aβ42/40 (HR: 0.94 [95% CI: 0.54–1.66]) was not associated with tau‐PET conversion. In the BioFINDER‐2 cohort (605 tau‐negative, median age: 70.2), 33 converted to tau‐positive (median follow‐up time: 2 years), with higher %p‐tau217 (HR: 1.80 [95% CI: 1.50–2.17]), amyloid‐PET centiloid (HR: 2.29 [95% CI: 1.77–2.97]), and lower Aβ42/40 (HR: 2.38 [95% CI: 1.17–4.83]) predicting conversion. Interpretation In two cohorts, %p‐tau217 was associated with tau‐PET conversion, comparable to amyloid‐PET. APS2 also predicted conversion in the MCSA cohort, whereas Aβ42/40 predicted conversion in the BioFINDER‐2 cohort, which had more individuals with cognitive impairment. ANN NEUROL 2025;98:1249–1260

Abstract INTRODUCTION Plasma biomarkers’ utility for predicting incident mild cognitive impairment (MCI) remains unclear. We evaluated associations of plasma Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers and amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) with transitions from cognitively unimpaired (CU) to MCI in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) and BioFINDER‐2 studies. METHODS Associations of continuous baseline plasma biomarker levels and amyloid PET Centiloid with progression to MCI, adjusting for age, sex, and education, were evaluated with Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS The study included 381 MCSA and 584 BioFINDER‐2 participants. Amyloid PET and percent phosphorylated to non‐phosphorylated tau217 (%p‐tau217) were strong predictors of progression to MCI in both cohorts: hazard ratios of 1.49 and 1.23 in the MCSA and 1.72 and 1.65 in BioFINDER, respectively. Amyloid beta 42/40 was a significant predictor in BioFINDER‐2 only (hazard ratio 2.20). DISCUSSION Plasma %p‐tau217 was associated with progression from CU to MCI in both cohorts, although differences in biomarker associations may be related to differences in the two cohorts. Highlights Mass‐spectrometry‐based plasma phosphorylated tau217 was associated with cognitively unimpaired to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) progression. Plasma amyloid beta 42/40 was a significant predictor in BioFINDER but not the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) was the strongest predictor of progression to MCI in the MCSA. Plasma had added value to amyloid PET in BioFINDER but not the MCSA. Biomarker performance may vary with cohort and biomarker measurement differences.

Abstract The landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) diagnosis is evolving rapidly, driven by advances in disease understanding, biomarker tools, and disease‐modifying therapies. Modern diagnostic approaches emphasize biological precision, early detection, and dynamic frameworks that adapt to treatment‐induced changes in disease biology. These frameworks enable opportunities for personalized interventions—encompassing pharmacological and non‐pharmacological strategies—and for enhanced clinical trial design. However, implementing these advancements globally is influenced by diverse cultural, infrastructural, and regulatory factors. The 2024 Alzheimer's Association International Conference Advancements: Modernizing Diagnosis, held in Japan, provided a unique platform to explore these global dynamics, particularly from an Asian perspective. This article highlights key discussions from the conference, exploring the role of biomarker‐based diagnostic frameworks in shaping the future of AD/ADRD research, diagnosis, and treatment. We highlight regional challenges and successes and emphasize ethical considerations and practical strategies needed to ensure equitable access to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. Highlights Advances in biomarkers are reshaping Alzheimer's disease diagnosis and treatment. Modern diagnostic frameworks highlight biological precision, early detection, and dynamic frameworks. The 2024 Alzheimer's Association International Conference Advancements: Modernizing Diagnosis explored challenges and opportunities in global biomarker implementation. The conference explored geographic‐specific impacts, focusing on Asia.

Abstract OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE A panel of clinicians, subject‐matter experts, and guideline methodologists convened by the Alzheimer's Association conducted a systematic review and formulated evidence‐based recommendations for using blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease (AD) within specialized care settings. The scope focuses on individuals with objective cognitive impairment, including those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, who are undergoing evaluation by providers trained and experienced in memory disorders, where AD is the suspected underlying etiology. METHODS The panel conducted a systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs in detecting AD pathology. The BBMs of interest included plasma phosphorylated‐tau (p‐tau) and amyloid‐beta (Aβ) tests measuring the following analytes: p‐tau217, ratio of p‐tau217 to non‐p‐tau217 ×100 (%p‐tau17), p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and ratio of Aβ42 to Aβ40. The reference standard tests included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), or neuropathology. The panel applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the GRADE evidence‐to‐decision (EtD) Framework to develop its recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS The key recommendations in this Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) are: (1) BBM tests with ≥90% sensitivity and ≥75% specificity can be used as a triaging test and (2) BBM tests with ≥90% sensitivity and specificity can serve as a substitute for amyloid PET imaging or CSF AD biomarker testing in patients with cognitive impairment presenting to specialized care for memory disorders. The panel cautions users of this guideline that there is significant variability in diagnostic test accuracy and many commercially available BBM tests do not meet these thresholds, especially using a single cutoff. Additionally, these tests do not serve as a substitute for comprehensive clinical evaluation by a healthcare professional and should be used only as part of a full diagnostic workup of patients with cognitive impairment presenting to specialized care settings, and with careful consideration of pretest probability of AD pathology. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS This CPG provides performance‐based, brand‐agnostic recommendations for the use of BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected AD within specialized care settings. By linking recommendations to a systematic review and associated living updates, and using a robust and transparent methodology, the guideline ensures scientific rigor, adaptability, and sustained relevance as evidence evolves. Clinicians are encouraged to stay informed about emerging paradigms—such as biomarker combinations or ratios and multi‐threshold testing—that may further refine the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs as the field evolves.