Live data from Hacker News

Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

medicalxpress.com

91–100 of 175 posts

Re: Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

#91

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?

If the patient forgets to follow-up. Badum tss. Thanks for the layup.

This isn't Reddit.

Re: Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analogy has a rather fatal flaw, which is that we already know people who've gotten Alzheimer's , and we also know for a fact people will continue to fall victim to it, at a pretty predictable rate. i.e. the detection has already happened ! Anyone who was waiting for a potential victim to appear before researching the cure already has all the reasons they need to research it. Detecting whom exactly the next vict…

Accurate detection in individuals is still important for testing any potential cure. Otherwise you can only do normal population studies over a very long time and pray that you didn't miss on any confounding variables. With this level of accuracy in diagnosing, you can do targeted testing.

While that is true, it doesn't change the sentiment behind “We have no cure. I don’t want to know.” if knowing the diagnosis doesn't help you personally. Sure you might have a sense of responsibility for mankind but you still know you can't do anything to save yourself.

With that said, lifestyle changes can slow down the onset of Alzheimer's, so knowing the diagnosis isn't totally useless.

Re: Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

#93

PSA to those with family affected by dementia/Alzheimer's at a relatively early age (say 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 ne…

Lenin famously died from it, you could see that obscure blank stare of a crazy person on his later photos

Re: Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

#94

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 u…

For 20-ish% of Alzheimer's patients, the Shingles vaccine may be a treatment. This has been suspected for a few years now but has received recent confirmation studies. https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/news/2025-11-18/promising-rese...

While the study was about the shingles vaccine, I wonder if having passed normally through shingles influences positively or negatively the chances of later developing Alzheimer's.

Re: Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analogy has a rather fatal flaw, which is that we already know people who've gotten Alzheimer's , and we also know for a fact people will continue to fall victim to it, at a pretty predictable rate. i.e. the detection has already happened ! Anyone who was waiting for a potential victim to appear before researching the cure already has all the reasons they need to research it. Detecting whom exactly the next vict…

Off topic: Would insurance companies carry patients after being detected for Alzheimers?

In the US or in countries with working healthcare?

Re: Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

#96
post #51

“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…

This analogy has a rather fatal flaw, which is that we already know people who've gotten Alzheimer's , and we also know for a fact people will continue to fall victim to it, at a pretty predictable rate. i.e. the detection has already happened ! Anyone who was waiting for a potential victim to appear before researching the cure already has all the reasons they need to research it. Detecting whom exactly the next vict…

It may not change much as far as researching a treatment or cure goes, but it may help with other stuff, like being better prepared for the future, like organizing a health care worker or getting family members to help out or to look out for you, and other stuff, which you might not be able to do at a later stage of Alzheimers.

While there aren't any cures yet, certain treatments and lifestyle strategies may slow its progression, keep quality of life as long as possible and stuff like that for as long as possible. (And the sooner you start with that, the better)

Re: Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

#97
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accurate detection in individuals is still important for testing any potential cure. Otherwise you can only do normal population studies over a very long time and pray that you didn't miss on any confounding variables. With this level of accuracy in diagnosing, you can do targeted testing.

While that is true, it doesn't change the sentiment behind “We have no cure. I don’t want to know.” if knowing the diagnosis doesn't help you personally. Sure you might have a sense of responsibility for mankind but you still know you can't do anything to save yourself. With that said, lifestyle changes can slow down the onset of Alzheimer's, so knowing the diagnosis isn't totally useless.

A lot of people have enough of a sense of responsibility to donate blood, or donate their organs.

I've long had the suspicion that much of what is called Alzheimers or dementia is some form of prion disease. This study doesn't show that, exactly, but it shows that abnormal proteins may be directly correlated.

So - and I'm not saying this is the case - but suppose that the abnormal proteins identified in this study could be transmitted by blood transfusions or organ transplants. Wouldn't that itself be enough for your diagnosis to help you personally not transmit those proteins to someone else?

If your attitude is that no one else in the world matters once you get a bad diagnosis, then nothing really mattered to you before. Other people are working day and night trying to cure you, so there's no cause for that level of nihilism. You may as well try to help from the vantage point you have.

Re: Blood test boosts Alzheimer's diagnosis accuracy to 94.5%, clinical study shows

#98
post #51

“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…

Absolutely, the belief in scientific circles is that the way forward to develop cures (or at least treatment that slows down the progression) is to treat it early. When you get to the point where you start showing clear symptoms, your brain is already mush. If you have a potential treatment that attacks the root cause, you would have to catch the very early, pre-clinical, stages of the disease, but without good diagnostics there is no way to do that (short of giving the disease to a wide swath of the population, like a vaccine... but that gets expensive very quickly, and side effects become a bigger worry.
Post reply on HN