Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Comparison of a multi-analyte algorithmic immunoassay blood test with immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry for the detection of amyloid pathology.

Created on 11 Jul 2026

Authors

David Wilson, Karen Copeland, Lindsey Mette, Meenakshi Khare, Matt Polak, Jorge Marques Signes, Tim Skelton

Published in

Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). Volume 18. Issue 3. Pages e70420. Epub Jul 09, 2026.

Abstract

Alzheimer's blood-based biomarker (BBM) tests using single biomarkers or ratios are well characterized, but head-to-head comparisons of multi-analyte algorithmic tests on shared cohorts are lacking. We compared a five-biomarker algorithmic immunoassay (LucentAD Complete) with an algorithmic immunoprecipitation mass-spectrometry (IP-MS) benchmark on a shared plasma cohort.
Symptomatic individuals (n = 192) with longitudinal samples from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) were analyzed versus amyloid positron emission tomography (PET). Cross-sectional (n = 115) and longitudinal (n = 179; 12-year span) cohorts representing disease progression were used.
The immunoassay amyloid risk score demonstrated a 0.94 area under the curve (AUC) and 92%-93% accuracy, achieving performance parity with IP-MS metrics on shared samples. The two-cutoff design yielded an intermediate zone of 10.4%-12.8%.
These results establish diagnostic parity between algorithmic immunoassay and algorithmic IP-MS assay. In addition, providing individual biomarker results alongside a validated risk score offers a more granular foundation for comprehensive management than amyloid status alone, supporting premium reimbursement for multi-analyte algorithmic BBMs in clinical practice.

PMID:
42434607
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 11 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 14
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement