{"title":"使用INNOTEST、Lumipulse G和Elecsys检测对阿尔茨海默病脑脊液核心生物标志物诊断准确性的比较:来自PUMCH痴呆队列研究的见解","authors":"Chenhui Mao, Yutong Zou, Tianyi Wang, Longze Sha, Meiqi Wu, Shanshan Chu, Wei Jin, Bo Li, Yixuan Huang, Yuyue Qiu, Jialu Bao, Wenjun Wang, Yuhan Jiang, Liling Dong, Feng Feng, Li Huo, Charlotte Teunissen, Ling Qiu, Jing Gao","doi":"10.1177/13872877251379084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) core biomarkers play a pivotal role in the biological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). While various commercial assays and kits are available for quantifying these biomarkers, their performance across diverse clinical settings remains insufficiently evaluated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of AD core biomarkers using four measurement methods in a Chinese population and to establish method-specific cutoff values tailored to different clinical scenarios.MethodsA total of 309 participants were enrolled from the PUMCH dementia cohort, comprising 176 AD, 114 non-AD dementia cases, and 19 cognitively normal controls (CN). For biomarker quantification, we employed one manual immunoassay (INNOTEST, conducted in two independent laboratories) and two fully automated immunoassay platforms (Lumipulse G and Roche Elecsys). These methods were used to measure CSF Aβ<sub>1-40</sub>, Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>, t-tau, and p-tau<sub>181</sub>, and to calculate three biomarker ratios (Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>/Aβ<sub>1-40</sub>, t-tau/Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>, and p-tau<sub>181</sub>/Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>).ResultsOur findings provide method-specific and clinical context-optimized cutoff values for each application scenario including clinically diagnosed AD versus non-AD dementia, amyloid PET-positive versus PET-negative dementia, and AD versus CN. The accuracy of differential diagnosis was higher using biomarker ratios (Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>/Aβ<sub>1-40</sub>, t-tau/Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>, p-tau<sub>181</sub>/Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>) than absolute values. Most of the high accuracy was achieved using automated assays especially Lumipulse G rather than manual assays.ConclusionsIn this first comparative study of three immunoassays in a Chinese cohort, automated assays demonstrated superior performance compared to manual assays. We established assay-specific cutoff values tailored to different clinical contexts in a Chinese population.</p>","PeriodicalId":14929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":" ","pages":"13872877251379084"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid core biomarkers using INNOTEST, Lumipulse G, and Elecsys assays: Insights from the PUMCH dementia cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Chenhui Mao, Yutong Zou, Tianyi Wang, Longze Sha, Meiqi Wu, Shanshan Chu, Wei Jin, Bo Li, Yixuan Huang, Yuyue Qiu, Jialu Bao, Wenjun Wang, Yuhan Jiang, Liling Dong, Feng Feng, Li Huo, Charlotte Teunissen, Ling Qiu, Jing Gao\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13872877251379084\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) core biomarkers play a pivotal role in the biological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). While various commercial assays and kits are available for quantifying these biomarkers, their performance across diverse clinical settings remains insufficiently evaluated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of AD core biomarkers using four measurement methods in a Chinese population and to establish method-specific cutoff values tailored to different clinical scenarios.MethodsA total of 309 participants were enrolled from the PUMCH dementia cohort, comprising 176 AD, 114 non-AD dementia cases, and 19 cognitively normal controls (CN). For biomarker quantification, we employed one manual immunoassay (INNOTEST, conducted in two independent laboratories) and two fully automated immunoassay platforms (Lumipulse G and Roche Elecsys). These methods were used to measure CSF Aβ<sub>1-40</sub>, Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>, t-tau, and p-tau<sub>181</sub>, and to calculate three biomarker ratios (Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>/Aβ<sub>1-40</sub>, t-tau/Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>, and p-tau<sub>181</sub>/Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>).ResultsOur findings provide method-specific and clinical context-optimized cutoff values for each application scenario including clinically diagnosed AD versus non-AD dementia, amyloid PET-positive versus PET-negative dementia, and AD versus CN. The accuracy of differential diagnosis was higher using biomarker ratios (Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>/Aβ<sub>1-40</sub>, t-tau/Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>, p-tau<sub>181</sub>/Aβ<sub>1-42</sub>) than absolute values. Most of the high accuracy was achieved using automated assays especially Lumipulse G rather than manual assays.ConclusionsIn this first comparative study of three immunoassays in a Chinese cohort, automated assays demonstrated superior performance compared to manual assays. We established assay-specific cutoff values tailored to different clinical contexts in a Chinese population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"13872877251379084\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877251379084\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877251379084","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
脑脊液(CSF)核心生物标志物在阿尔茨海默病(AD)的生物学诊断中起着关键作用。虽然有各种商业分析和试剂盒可用于量化这些生物标志物,但它们在不同临床环境中的表现仍未得到充分评估。目的:本研究旨在比较四种测量方法在中国人群中AD核心生物标志物的诊断准确性,并建立针对不同临床情况的方法特异性临界值。方法从PUMCH痴呆队列中共招募了309名参与者,其中包括176名AD, 114名非AD痴呆患者和19名认知正常对照(CN)。对于生物标志物的定量,我们使用了一个手动免疫测定(INNOTEST,在两个独立的实验室进行)和两个全自动免疫测定平台(Lumipulse G和Roche Elecsys)。这些方法用于测定脑脊液Aβ1-40、Aβ1-42、t-tau和p-tau181,并计算3种生物标志物比率(Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40、t-tau/Aβ1-42和p-tau181/Aβ1-42)。我们的研究结果为每个应用场景提供了方法特异性和临床环境优化的截止值,包括临床诊断的AD与非AD痴呆,淀粉样蛋白pet阳性与pet阴性痴呆,AD与CN。生物标志物比值(a - β1-42/ a - β1-40, t-tau/ a - β1-42, p-tau181/ a - β1-42)鉴别诊断的准确性高于绝对值。大多数的高准确度是通过自动分析,特别是Lumipulse G,而不是人工分析来实现的。在中国队列中首次对三种免疫测定方法进行了比较研究,与人工测定方法相比,自动测定方法表现出更好的性能。我们建立了针对中国人群不同临床情况的测定特异性临界值。
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid core biomarkers using INNOTEST, Lumipulse G, and Elecsys assays: Insights from the PUMCH dementia cohort study.
BackgroundCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) core biomarkers play a pivotal role in the biological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). While various commercial assays and kits are available for quantifying these biomarkers, their performance across diverse clinical settings remains insufficiently evaluated.ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of AD core biomarkers using four measurement methods in a Chinese population and to establish method-specific cutoff values tailored to different clinical scenarios.MethodsA total of 309 participants were enrolled from the PUMCH dementia cohort, comprising 176 AD, 114 non-AD dementia cases, and 19 cognitively normal controls (CN). For biomarker quantification, we employed one manual immunoassay (INNOTEST, conducted in two independent laboratories) and two fully automated immunoassay platforms (Lumipulse G and Roche Elecsys). These methods were used to measure CSF Aβ1-40, Aβ1-42, t-tau, and p-tau181, and to calculate three biomarker ratios (Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40, t-tau/Aβ1-42, and p-tau181/Aβ1-42).ResultsOur findings provide method-specific and clinical context-optimized cutoff values for each application scenario including clinically diagnosed AD versus non-AD dementia, amyloid PET-positive versus PET-negative dementia, and AD versus CN. The accuracy of differential diagnosis was higher using biomarker ratios (Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40, t-tau/Aβ1-42, p-tau181/Aβ1-42) than absolute values. Most of the high accuracy was achieved using automated assays especially Lumipulse G rather than manual assays.ConclusionsIn this first comparative study of three immunoassays in a Chinese cohort, automated assays demonstrated superior performance compared to manual assays. We established assay-specific cutoff values tailored to different clinical contexts in a Chinese population.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease (JAD) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer''s disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, hypotheses, ethics reviews, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research that will expedite our fundamental understanding of Alzheimer''s disease.