alt Hacker NewsBlood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows
Comments
PSA to those with family affected by dementia/Alzheimer's at a relatively early age (say <70yo): Get them tested for STDs, specifically Syphilis.
Left untreated for a very long time (decade+), it spreads to the brain and causes dementia among other things. Older generations with stigmas, taboos, or from lower educational backgrounds seem (to me) less likely to get tested, so it seems plausible.
Source: Have recently discovered this myself with a family member from their neurologist.
Could earlier diagnoses contribute to finding causes and treatments?
For a disease which (to my knowledge) can’t be slowed down or reversed, I think it’s a fair question why we would want to detect Alzheimer’s. Maybe there are other reasons, but my suspicion is that we will be able to, and an easy detection method significantly widens the pool of subjects to study later on.
If it turns out that driving a Prius on Tuesdays slows down Alzheimer’s, a larger pool of subjects would allow us to figure that out.
Alarm bells go up. 94.5% in itself is suspicious. It insinuates precision. I highly doubt you can go anywhere near 0.5% correctness.
Paper is at Springer Nature Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00415-026-13676-6
Maybe I've misunderstood something, but how can they know the accuracy of the test? It is the best test out there, so if it misses a diagnosis, how do they reliably catch the false negative?
This needs to include life-changing false positive rates. Imagine being given a diagnosis like this - people around you who know and any corporations who can sniff it out by snooping on your communications can lead to much rejection early in life. What happens when the diagnosis is as positive when it shouldn’t have been?
so 94,5% sensitivity, or specificity? this thing with medical testing and false positives is tricky
Since the recent discoveries about Shingles Vaccine delaying dementia https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/link-between-shingles-vaccine-...
One of interesting checks in this study might be to check when (if) any of the participants had taken this vax and what the impact might be on an Alzimer's diagnosis.
94.5% is actually terrible.
If you have a prevalence of 10 in 1000, how do the numbers shake out?
Well, you test all 1,000. If we assume a 95% accuracy for false-positive and false negatives?
Of the 990 that you test that don't have the disease, the test will false state 50 do have the disease. Yikes!
And of the 10 that do have the disease? You'll miss 1 of them.
Great but the big problem is how to actively treat it. Sleep is a huge factor and that’s a problem for us insomniacs :(
“We have no cure. I don’t want to know.”
If astronomers announced that a large asteroid might strike Earth in twenty years, and that we currently had no way to deflect it, nobody would respond by saying, “Come back when you already have the rocket.” We would immediately build better telescopes to track it precisely, refine its trajectory models, and begin developing propulsion systems capable of interception. You do not wait for the cure before improving the measurement. You improve the measurement so that a cure becomes possible, targeted, and effective.
Medicine is no different. Refusing to improve early, probabilistic diagnosis because today’s treatments are modest confuses sequence with outcome. Breakthroughs do not emerge from vague labels and mixed populations. They emerge from precise, quantitative stratification that allows real effects to be seen. The danger is not that we measure too early. It is that we continue making irreversible clinical and research decisions using imprecise, binary classifications while biological insight and therapeutic tools are advancing rapidly. Building the probabilistic layer now is not premature. It is how we make future intervention feasible.