It is a nasty disease. Alzheimer’s hides in the shadows of memory. Other conditions mimic it. People often miss the early signs until it is too late.
Current blood tests help, but they are blunt instruments. They show markers. They don’t predict the future. Not really.
A new study funded by the National Institutes of health (NIH) changes the game, sort of. An experimental blood test could spot people right on the brink. Before the fog rolls in. This means doctors might intervene sooner.
You can’t get it today. But it is different from what is in pharmacies. Here is what neurologists actually think.
Who are we talking to?
We looked at Clifford Segil, DO. He practices neurology in Santa Monica, California. Also Krishnankutty Sathion, MBBS, PhD. She chairs neurology at Penn State health. They treat these patients. Every day.
What did they find?
The study focused on circular RNAs. Shortened to circRNAs. These float in the blood at higher levels in Alzheimer’s patients.
Old tests look for amyloid plaque markers. Plaques are hallmarks, yes. But they tell you nothing about progression. Do you decline tomorrow? Or in ten years? The plaques stay silent.
Researchers looked at blood from 1,200+ people. They built a model using 34 specific circRNAs linked to the disease. Then they pitted this new model against the standard pTau217 protein test. The leading biomarker, right now.
The result? The circRNA test was just as good at spotting existing cases. Par for the course, essentially. But it shined in prediction. It predicted which healthy-looking people would later show symptoms. Better. Much better.
Data suggests levels go off the rails two to four years before symptoms appear. Two years. That is a long time in this context.
How is this different?
Clifford Segil points out the difference in mechanics. Current tests measure proteins like pTau217. They are linked to the plaques. “Rather than placing a needle in your spine… blood tests have been marketed as biomarkers,” Segil says.
Intrusive versus non-invasive. Still. It’s proteins.
The new test measures genetic material. Circular RNA, to be exact. Sathion notes this detects biological changes, not just the structural debris.
It is a fundamentally different signal. Not the scar tissue. But the cellular alarm bells ringing inside the cell itself.
So why should you care?
Sathion calls it “exciting.” She might not use the word often. Early detection matters. But here is the twist.
Some people have the pathology but remain cognit normal. Due to cognitive reserve. Or just sheer resilience.
You could test positive for markers. Feel fine. Stay fine. Until you don’t? Or until you die of old age, still sharp, carrying the markers in your blood.
Dr. Segil warns against hasty diagnosis. Blood test says “Alzheimer’s.” Doctor says “Wait.” “Diagnosing dementia from a blood test creates false positives,” Segil argues. “Most people wouldn’t want to be told they have dementia because of a vial.”
Who would? The label sticks. The stigma is real.
Where does this fit?
Not yet. Not in standard practice.
More research is required. Validation, always.
If it holds up, Sathion sees it in preventive care. Maybe at Medicare wellness visits. Screening older adults who are at risk. Not as a definitive hammer. But as a screen.
A warning light on the dashboard. Not a crash notification.
What next?
Science moves slow. Commerce moves faster. The researchers are working with companies. Clinical tests are the goal.
Patience is required. Or maybe just hope.
Which one works better, you ask? Neither, really.
