Cited by 15Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Plasma Phosphorylated Tau 217 Cutoffs for Amyloid Pathology and Kidney Function, Body Mass Index, and Anemia

Open access
Yun, Jihwan, Lee, Jungah, Shin, Daeun, Lee, Eun Hye, Kim, Jun Pyo, Ham, Hongki, Gu, Yuna, Chun, Min Young +75 more·2026·JAMA Neurology

Abstract

Importance: Plasma phosphorylated p-tau 217 levels vary with biological factors such as kidney dysfunction, body mass index (BMI), and anemia. It remains unclear whether a biological subgroup–specific optimal cutoff or a double-cutoff strategy could enhance diagnostic accuracy and cost efficiency beyond the standard single cutoff. Objective: To compare the diagnostic and economic performance of 3 plasma p-tau217 classification strategies for detecting amyloid-β (Aβ) positivity: standard single cutoff, subgroup-specific optimal cutoff, and double cutoff. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted from 2016 to 2023; analyses were completed in 2025. Participants were recruited from multiple memory clinics and community-based cohorts. All participants had amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, clinical evaluation, and p-tau217 testing with measures of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), BMI, and hemoglobin. Measurements of p-tau217 were made using UGOT Simoa and Roche Elecsys, and the %p-tau217 ratio was assessed using a tau multianalyte assay (C 2 N Diagnostics LLC). Exposures: Kidney function (chronic kidney disease [CKD], eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ; advanced CKD, eGFR <45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), underweight (BMI <18.5), obesity (BMI ≥27.5), and anemia (hemoglobin <12 g/dL in women, <13 g/dL in men). Main Outcomes and Measures: Plasma p-tau217 concentration; standard single cutoff, optimal cutoffs, and double cutoff for Aβ positivity (Centiloid ≥25.5); accuracy; and cost-effectiveness estimated from false-positive, false-negative, and confirmatory imaging costs. Results: A total of 2571 participants were analyzed with UGOT, 1578 with Roche, and 304 with the C2N %p-tau217 ratio. The mean (SD) age was similar across cohorts (71.3 [8.6] years in the UGOT cohort, 71.3 [8.5] years in the Roche cohort, and 71.8 [7.8] years in the C2N cohort); there were 1633 (63.5%), 1006 (63.8%), and 191 (62.8%) women and 938 (36.5%), 572 (36.2%), and 113 (37.2%) men, respectively. In the UGOT cohort, the optimal cutoff improved diagnostic accuracy compared with the standard single cutoff, particularly in CKD and anemia (CKD: from 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72; to 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; anemia: from 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.84; to 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90), with consistent findings in the Roche cohort. In all biological subgroups, the double-cutoff strategy also increased accuracy relative to the single cutoff and reduced false classifications but yielded 12% to 39% intermediate results. When compared directly, the optimal cutoff provided higher accuracy than the double cutoff for CKD while lowering total diagnostic costs. For anemia, the double cutoff showed slightly higher accuracy but required confirmatory PET in up to 25% of cases, offsetting its economic advantage. In obesity, the double cutoff remained superior for both diagnostic accuracy and cost efficiency. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that both the optimal cutoff and the double-cutoff strategy outperformed the standard single cutoff, each showing distinct strengths across subgroups. These findings support biologically informed thresholds to improve diagnostic accuracy and cost efficiency when implementing plasma p-tau217.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.5530

Cites

33 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yun, J., Lee, J., Shin, D., Lee, E. H., Kim, J. P., Ham, H., Gu, Y., Chun, M. Y., Kang, S. H., Kim, H. J., Na, D. L., Kim, K. W., Kim, S. E., Kim, Y., Kim, J., Jung, N.-Y., Kim, Y. J., Cho, S. H., Lee, J. S., Kim, S., Zetterberg, H., Blennow, K., Gonzalez-Ortiz, F., Ashton, N. J., Braunstein, J. B., Verghese, P. B., West, T., Meyer, M. R., Seo, S. W., Jang, H., Groups, K.-R. S., Kim, Y., Han, S.-H., Seong, J., Choi, J.-K., Lee, E.-S., Lee, T.-K., Chin, J., Kim, C.-H., Kim, H. J., Bok, H., Kim, H.-R., Kim, S. J., Na, S., Kim, G. H., Lee, J. S., Cho, H., Kim, B. C., Lee, D. Y., Moon, S. Y., Byun, M. S., Jung, G., Yi, D., Lee, H. N., Jang, J.-W., Jeong, J. H., Jung, Y. H., Kim, J. H., Kim, Y., Cheon, B. K., Seo, J., Noh, Y., Yang, H., Ha, Y., Shin, H.-E., Kang, K., Eom, S., Shin, K. Y., Kim, Y., Jang, J., Yoon, C., Lee, D. K., Ham, H., Park, Y. H., Kim, S.-J., Byun, B., Choi, Y., Lee, N. K., Won, H.-H., Cho, M., Jung, S.-H., Lee, D. H., & Kim, B.
Affiliations
  • Kyung Hee University (KR)
  • Alzheimer’s Disease Convergence Research Center, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
  • Samsung Medical Center (KR)
  • Hallym University (KR)
  • Yonsei University (KR)
  • Korea University Guro Hospital (KR)
  • Jeonbuk National University Hospital (KR)
  • Department of Neurology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea
  • Kangwon National University (KR)
  • Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital (KR)
  • Department of Neurology, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Chonnam National University (KR)
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
  • King's College London (GB)
  • C2N Diagnostics (United States) (US)
  • Asan Medical Center (KR)
  • for the K-ROAD Study Groups
Corresponding author
  • Seo, Sang Won
  • Jang, Hyemin
Venue
JAMA Neurology
Published
2026-03-01
Volume
83
Issue
3
Pages
269
ISSN
2168-6149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7127189063
Cited by
13
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 13
FWCI
61.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Neurology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Alzheimer's Association (SG-23-1038904 QC, ZEN-21-848495, SG-23-1038904, 2021 Zenith Award)
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Demensförbundet
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • King's College London
  • University College London
  • European Commission (860197)
  • National Research Foundation
  • Chonnam National University
  • Kangwon National University
  • Pusan National University
  • University of Ulsan
  • Hallym University
  • Inje University
  • Sungkyunkwan University
  • Korea Health Industry Development Institute (RS-2022-KH125667)
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (RS‐2019‐NR040057)
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2017-00915)
  • Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset
  • Göteborgs Universitet
  • University of Science and Technology of China
  • Ministry of SMEs and Startups
  • Ministry of Science and ICT, South Korea (2021-II212068, RS-2019-NR040057, RS-2022-KH125667, RS-2020-KH107436, RS-2021-II212068)
  • Jeonbuk National University
  • UK Dementia Research Institute
  • Sorbonne Université
  • Fondation pour la Recherche sur Alzheimer
  • Samsung
  • School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
  • Korea National Institute of Health
  • Sahlgrenska Akademin
  • Institute for Information and Communications Technology Promotion (2022-, RS‐2021‐II212068)
  • School of Life Sciences and Biotechnology Division of Life Sciences, Korea University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
phosphorylated tau217, plasma biomarkers, Alzheimer's disease, amyloid PET, cut-off values, chronic kidney disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, body mass index, obesity, underweight, anemia, hemoglobin, cost-effectiveness, diagnostic accuracy
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Anemia, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Glomerular Filtration Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phosphorylation, Cohort Studies, Biomarkers, Body Mass Index, Amyloid beta-Peptides, tau Proteins, Positron-Emission Tomography, Renal Insufficiency, Chronic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review