Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Oct 10:17:1681516.
doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2025.1681516. eCollection 2025.

Clinical validation of a plasma-based antibody-free LC-MS method for identifying CSF amyloid positivity in mild cognitive impairment

Affiliations

Clinical validation of a plasma-based antibody-free LC-MS method for identifying CSF amyloid positivity in mild cognitive impairment

José Antonio Allué et al. Front Aging Neurosci. .

Abstract

Background: The recent approval of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in several countries has accelerated the need for affordable, simple and scalable methods to identify patients who are eligible for treatment with the new disease-modifying therapies (DMT). Blood-based biomarkers offer less invasive alternatives to established gold standards. We have clinically validated a predictive model combining plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and age, in two independent real-world cohorts to identify brain amyloid deposition.

Methods: We conducted a clinical validation study involving 450 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from two real-world cohorts (HCSC, Madrid, Spain and HUSM, Lleida, Spain). Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 was measured by ABtest-MS, an antibody-free liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method. CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 and p-tau181/Aβ42 (gold standards) were quantified with the Lumipulse® platform. The model was trained in the HCSC cohort and validated in the HUSM cohort. Finally, an overall analysis in the combined population was performed. A dual cutoff approach was used to classify the patients as positive or negative. Statistical analysis included bootstrap resampling and model calibration.

Results: In the HCSC, HUSM, external validation and combined analysis, AUCs were 0.89 (95% confidence intervals-CI: 0.84-0.93), 0.88 (0.84-0.93), 0.88 (0.83-0.92) and 0.88 (0.84-0.91), with corresponding accuracies of 82.3, 81.6, 82.3, and 81.1%, respectively. After the combined analysis, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were established at 87.5%, resulting in cutoff values of 0.30 and 0.67 for the likelihood of amyloid negativity and positivity, respectively, for a prevalence of 62%. Probability values lower than 0.30 indicate low probability of brain amyloid deposition, while values greater than 0.67 indicate high probability. Less than 28% of the participants fell into the intermediate zone. Additional cutoffs were derived for different prevalence values. Predictive model calibration showed excellent agreement with observed data, confirming accurate predictions (slope = 0.98, intercept = -0.01).

Conclusion: This predictive model has demonstrated high accuracy for the identification of brain amyloid deposition in patients with MCI. Derived cutoffs enabled over 70% reduction in invasive testing, supporting efficient and cost-effective identification of candidates for DMTs.

Keywords: ABtest-MS; Alzheimer’s disease; Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio; amyloid-β; blood biomarkers; mass spectrometry; mild cognitive impairment; validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JAA, LS, NF, JL, JR, AS, and MPL are full-time employees of Araclon Biotech-Grifols. RG, RSV and JT are full-time employees of Grifols. GPR has received consultancy fees, honoraria for lectures, and/or participated in advisory boards from the following companies: Grifols, Araclon Biotech, Lilly, Almirall, Nutricia, Schwabe Pharma and Esteve. GPR has also received grant support from Acción Estratégica en Salud, integrated in the Spanish National RCDCI Plan and financed by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)-Subdirección General de Evaluación and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER -“Una manera de Hacer Europa”), Grant No. FIS PP10650. Proyectos de investigación de medicina personalizada (ISCIII), PMP-DEGESCO, Grant No. PMP22/00022. JAMG has received honoraria as a speaker from Almirall, Alter, Eisai, Esteve, KRKA, and Schwabe, and as a consultant from Araclon, Eisai, and Schwabe. He has also received research grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the Fundación Conocimiento Madri+D. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
ROC curves obtained after the analysis of each cohort separately and after combination.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of model predicted probabilities after combined analysis (450 participants).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Concordance plot between predicted probabilities and CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 values. A single probability cutoff (calculated at the maximum Youden Index) of 0.591 was used. A mean value of 0.0685 was used to define CSF positivity (average of cutoff values used in each cohort separately).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Boxplots with individual data points generated to visualize the distribution of AUC values across noise levels. Red dashed line indicates the original analysis without adding extra noise. Boxes represent the interquartile range (IQR), the line indicates the median, and whiskers extend to 1.5 × IQR.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Evolution of PPV and NPV along the probability range. Both predictive values were fixed at 87.5% (black horizontal dashed line). According to this graph, 27.1% of the patients would fall in the grey zone (0.30 ≤ p ≤ 0.67) and would need additional testing.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Average calibration plot after 1.000 bootstrap iterations. Flexible calibration line approaches ideal calibration line (Slope = 0.98 and Intercept = −0.01) indicating good calibration.

References

    1. Albert M. S., DeKosky S. T., Dickson D., Dubois B., Feldman H. H., Fox N. C., et al. (2011). The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 7, 270–279. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.008, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Allué J. A., Pascual-Lucas M., Sarasa L., Castillo S., Sarasa M., Sáez M. E., et al. (2023). Clinical utility of an antibody-free LC-MS method to detect brain amyloid deposition in cognitively unimpaired individuals from the screening visit of the A4 study. Alzheimers Dement. 15:e12451. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12451, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Álvarez-Sánchez L., Peña-Bautista C., Ferré-González L., Balaguer Á., Amengual J. L., Baquero M., et al. (2025). Promising clinical tools for specific Alzheimer disease diagnosis from plasma pTau217 and ApoE genotype in a cognitive disorder unit. Sci. Rep. 15:16316. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-01511-3, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alzheimer’s Association (2024). 2024 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 20, 3708–3821. doi: 10.1002/alz.13809, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arranz J., Zhu N., Rubio-Guerra S., Rodríguez-Baz Í., Ferrer R., Carmona-Iragui M., et al. (2024). Diagnostic performance of plasma pTau217, pTau181, Aβ1-42 and Aβ1-40 in the LUMIPULSE automated platform for the detection of Alzheimer disease. Alz. Res. Therapy 16:139. doi: 10.1186/s13195-024-01513-9, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources