AccScience Publishing / GTM / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/GTM026080005
Cite this article
4
Download
138
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
REVIEW ARTICLE

Translating neuroscience-driven biomarkers into adult clinical practice: Challenges, opportunities, and pathways forward

Ángel R. Rábago-Monzón1† Karyme M. Alemán-Villa1† David A. Armienta-Rojas1 Alberto K. De la Herrán Arita1*
Show Less
1 Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
†These authors contributed equally to this work.
Global Translational Medicine, 026080005 https://doi.org/10.36922/GTM026080005
Received: 17 February 2026 | Revised: 18 June 2026 | Accepted: 1 July 2026 | Published online: 20 July 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Abstract

Despite remarkable advances in neuroscience and high-throughput omics technologies, the translation of novel biomarkers into routine clinical use remains stubbornly slow and fragmented. While the volume of discovery data continues to grow exponentially, many candidate markers fail to cross the translational valley of death due to a profound clinical utility gap. This narrative review synthesizes recent progress in neuroscience biomarker discovery, evaluating the systemic bottlenecks that hinder clinical translation, ranging from pre-analytical variability and statistical overfitting to complex regulatory and reimbursement hurdles. We propose integrative, reverse-translational frameworks designed to accelerate implementation by beginning with the end clinical context in mind. Emphasis is placed on the shift toward multimodal biomarkers, including the integration of proteomic, metabolomic, advanced neuroimaging, and emerging digital phenotypic data. Through detailed, disease-specific case studies spanning Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, and neuropsychiatry, we illustrate both translational successes and persistent methodological pitfalls. We also examine the imperative of global health equity. We argue that biomarker scalability, economic viability, and point-of-care adaptability are just as vital as biological sensitivity in the democratization of precision neurology. Over-reliance on expensive, Western-centric validation pipelines risks exacerbating existing healthcare disparities. Ultimately, we advocate for collaborative, data-driven pipelines that bridge isolated laboratory innovation with pragmatic clinical needs, ensuring that precision neuroscience translates into tangible, accessible outcomes for diverse patient populations worldwide.

Keywords
Neuroscience biomarkers
Translational medicine
Proteomics
Metabolomics
Clinical validation
Interdisciplinary research
Precision neurology
Funding
None.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource. Food and Drug Administration (US); 2016.
  2. Hampel H, Vergallo A, Perry G, Lista S; Alzheimer Precision Medicine Initiative (APMI). The Alzheimer Precision Medicine Initiative. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;68(1):1-24. doi: 10.3233/JAD-181121
  3. Seyhan AA. Lost in translation: the valley of death across preclinical and clinical research. Transl Med Commun. 2019;4(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s41231-019-0050-7
  4. Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485-514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210
  5. Gribkoff VK, Kaczmarek LK. The need for new approaches in CNS drug discovery: Why drugs have failed, and what can be done. Neuropharmacology. 2017;120:11-19. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.03.021
  6. Ioannidis JP, Khoury MJ. Improving validation practices in “omics” research. Science. 2011;334(6060):1230-1232. doi: 10.1126/science.1211811
  7. McShane LM, Cavenagh MM, Lively TG, et al. Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials. Nature. 2013;502(7471):317-320. doi: 10.1038/nature12564
  8. Drucker E, Krapfenbauer K. Pitfalls and limitations in translation from biomarker discovery to clinical utility in predictive medicine. EPMA J. 2013;4(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1878-5085-4-7
  9. Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z, et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(14):1054-1061. doi: 10.1093/jnci/93.14.1054
  10. Rapp T, Lin PJ. The Health Economics of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Value in Health. 2025;28(4):495-496. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.002
  11. Hampel H, O’Bryant SE, Molinuevo JL, et al. Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: mapping the road to the clinic. Nature Reviews Neurology. 2018;14(11):639-652. doi: 10.1038/s41582-018-0079-7
  12. Khalil M, Teunissen CE, Otto M, et al. Neurofilaments as biomarkers in neurological disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14(10):577-589. doi: 10.1038/s41582-018-0058-z
  13. Gaetani L, Blennow K, Calabresi P, et al. Neurofilament light chain as a biomarker in neurological disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(8):870-881. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2018-320106
  14. Karikari TK, Pascoal TA, Ashton NJ, et al. Blood phosphorylated tau 181 as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease: a diagnostic performance and prediction modelling study using data from four prospective cohorts. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(5):422-433. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30071-5
  15. Thijssen EH, La Joie R, Wolf A, et al. Diagnostic value of plasma phosphorylated tau181 in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Nat Med. 2020;26(3):387-397. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0762-2
  16. Baldacci F, Lista S, Cavedo E, et al. Diagnostic function of the neuroinflammatory biomarker YKL-40 in Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2017;14(4):285-299. doi: 10.1080/14789450.2017.1304217
  17. Suarez-Calvet M, Araque Caballero MÁ, Kleinberger G, et al. Early changes in CSF sTREM2 in dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease occur after amyloid deposition and neuronal injury. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8(369):369ra178. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aag1767
  18. Alemán-Villa KM, Armienta-Rojas DA, Camberos-Barraza J, et al. Neuroinflammation across the Spectrum of Neurodegenerative Diseases: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Frontiers. Neuroimmunomodulation. 2025;32(1):278-305. doi: 10.1159/000548021
  19. Mattsson N, Andreasson U, Zetterberg H, Blennow K. Association of Plasma Neurofilament Light With Neurodegeneration in Patients With Alzheimer Disease. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74(5):557-566. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.6117
  20. Ashton NJ, Hye A, Rajkumar AP, et al. An update on blood-based biomarkers for non-Alzheimer neurodegenerative disorders. Nat Rev Neurol. 2020;16(5):265-284. doi: 10.1038/s41582-020-0348-0
  21. De La Herrán-Arita AK. When sleep fails, brain clearance suffers: the role of glymphatic impairment in clinical neurology. Acta Neurol Belg. 2025. doi: 10.1007/s13760-025-02959-w
  22. Chen MK, Mecca AP, Naganawa M, et al. Assessing Synaptic Density in Alzheimer Disease With Synaptic Vesicle Glycoprotein 2A Positron Emission Tomographic Imaging. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(10):1215-1224. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1836
  23. Hamelin L, Lagarde J, Dorothée G, et al. Early and protective microglial activation in Alzheimer’s disease: a prospective study using 18F-DPA-714 PET imaging. Brain. 2016;139(4):1252-1264. doi: 10.1093/brain/aww017
  24. Klunk WE, Engler H, Nordberg A, et al. Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease with Pittsburgh Compound-B. Ann Neurol. 2004;55(3):306-319. doi: 10.1002/ana.20009
  25. Jack CR Jr, Knopman DS, Jagust WJ, et al. Hypothetical model of dynamic biomarkers of the Alzheimer’s pathological cascade. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(1):119-128. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70299-6
  26. Bullmore E, Sporns O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(3):186-198. doi: 10.1038/nrn2575
  27. Monsour R. Neuroimaging in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Current Applications. Federal Practitioner. 2022;39(1):S14-S20. doi: 10.12788/fp.0231
  28. Llera A, Wolfers T, Mulders P, Beckmann CF. Inter-individual differences in human brain structure and morphology link to variation in demographics and behavior. eLife. 2019;8:e44443. doi: 10.7554/elife.44443
  29. Mintun MA, Lo AC, Duggan Evans C, et al. Donanemab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(18):1691-1704. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100708
  30. Rabinovici GD, Gatsonis C, Apgar C, et al. Association of Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography With Subsequent Change in Clinical Management Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Dementia. JAMA. 2019;321(13):1286-1294. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2000
  31. Escott-Price V, Myers AJ, Huentelman M, Hardy J. Polygenic risk score analysis of pathologically confirmed Alzheimer disease. Ann Neurol. 2017;82(2):311-314. doi: 10.1002/ana.24999
  32. Torkamani A, Wineinger NE, Topol EJ. The personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk scores. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19(9):581-590. doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0018-x
  33. Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R115. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-10-r115
  34. Lu AT, Quach A, Wilson JG, et al. DNA methylation GrimAge strongly predicts lifespan and healthspan. Aging. 2019;11(2):303-327. doi: 10.18632/aging.101684
  35. Marioni RE, Shah S, McRae AF, et al. DNA methylation age of blood predicts all-cause mortality in later life. Genome Biol. 2015;16(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s13059-015-0584-6
  36. Balaji JN, Prakash S, Surapaneni KM. A narrative review on emergence of digital biomarkers as the future frontiers in medical practice. J Clin Diagn Res. 2024;18(10):BE1-BE5. doi: 10.7860/jcdr/2024/65692.20154
  37. Lipsmeier F, Taylor KI, Kilchenmann T, et al. Evaluation of smartphone-based testing to generate exploratory outcome measures in a phase 1 Parkinson’s disease clinical trial. Mov Disord. 2018;33(8):1287-1297. doi: 10.1002/mds.27376
  38. Jacobson NC, Weingarden H, Wilhelm S. Digital biomarkers of mood disorders and symptom change. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2(1):3. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0078-0
  39. Lombardo C, Esposito G, Carbone S, Serrano S, Mento C. Speech analysis and speech emotion recognition in mental disease: a scoping review. Front Psychol. 2025;16:1645860. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1645860
  40. Mandryk RL, Birk MV. The potential of game-based digital biomarkers for modeling mental health. JMIR Serious Games. 2019;6(4):e13485. doi: 10.2196/13485
  41. Coravos A, Khozin S, Mandl KD. Developing and adopting safe and effective digital biomarkers to improve patient outcomes. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2(1):14. doi: 10.1038/s41746-019-0090-4
  42. Piau A, Wild K, Mattek N, Kaye J. Current state of Digital biomarker Technologies for Real-Life, Home-Based Monitoring of Cognitive Function for mild cognitive impairment to Mild Alzheimer Disease and Implications for Clinical Care: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(8):e12785. doi: 10.2196/12785
  43. Inan OT, Tenaerts P, Prindiville SA, et al. Digitizing clinical trials. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3(1):101. doi: 10.1038/s41746-020-0302-y
  44. Onnela JP. Opportunities and challenges in the collection and analysis of digital phenotyping data. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2021;46:45-54. doi: 10.1038/s41386-020-0771-3
  45. Torous J, Bucci S, Bell IH, et al. The growing field of digital psychiatry: current evidence and the future of apps, social media, chatbots, and virtual reality. World Psychiatry. 2021;20(3):318-335. doi: 10.1002/wps.20883
  46. Diamandis EP. The failure of protein cancer biomarkers to reach the clinic: why, and what can be done to address the problem? BMC Med. 2012;10(1):87. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-10-87
  47. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(21):1446-1452. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp335
  48. O’Bryant SE, Mielke MM, Rissman RA, et al. Blood-based biomarkers in Alzheimer disease: Current state of the science and a novel collaborative paradigm for advancing from discovery to clinic. Alzheimers Dement. 2017;13(1):45-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.09.014
  49. Sunde AL, Alsnes IV, Aarsland D, et al. Preanalytical stability of plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Alzheimers Dement. 2023;15(2):e12439. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12439
  50. Salvadó G, Janelidze S, Bali D, et al. Plasma phosphorylated TAU 217 to identify preclinical Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurology. 2025;82(11):1122. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2025.3217
  51. Andreasson U, Blennow K, Zetterberg H. Update on ultrasensitive technologies to facilitate research on blood biomarkers for central nervous system disorders. Alzheimers Dement. 2016;3(1):98-102. doi: 10.1016/j.dadm.2016.05.005
  52. Lewczuk P, Riederer P, O’Bryant SE, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers for neurodegenerative dementias: An update of the Consensus of the Task Force on Biological Markers in Psychiatry of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2018;19(4):244-328. doi: 10.1080/15622975.2017.1375556
  53. Hewitt RE. Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine. Curr Opin Oncol. 2011;23(1):112-119. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e32834161b8
  54. Vaught J, Kelly A, Hewitt R. A review of international biobanks and networks: success factors and key benchmarks. Biopreserv Biobank. 2009;7(3):143-150. doi: 10.1089/bio.2010.0003
  55. Califf RM. Biomarker definitions and their applications. Exp Biol Med. 2018;243(3):213-221. doi: 10.1177/1535370217750088
  56. Faulkner E, Annemans L, Garrison L, et al. Challenges in the development and reimbursement of personalized medicine-payer and manufacturer perspectives and implications for health economics and outcomes research: a report of the ISPOR Personalized Medicine Special Interest Group. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1162-1171. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.006
  57. Wimo A, Seeher K, Cataldi P, et al. The worldwide costs of dementia 2015 and comparisons with 2010. Alzheimers Dement. 2017;13(1):1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.07.150
  58. Canestro WJ, Monane M, Bateman RJ, Holtzman DM, Braunstein JB. The economic utility of an Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarker test in the evaluation of cognitively impaired patients. Alzheimers Dement. 2025;21(S6):e106232. doi: 10.1002/alz70860_106232
  59. Jack CR Jr, Bennett DA, Blennow K, et al. NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(4):535-562. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.018
  60. Palmqvist S, Janelidze S, Quiroz YT, et al. Discriminative Accuracy of Plasma Phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer Disease vs Other Neurodegenerative Disorders. JAMA. 2020;324(8):772-781. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12134
  61. Janelidze S, Mattsson N, Palmqvist S, et al. Plasma P-tau181 in Alzheimer’s disease: relationship to other biomarkers, differential diagnosis, neuropathology and longitudinal progression to Alzheimer’s dementia. Nat Med. 2020;26(3):379-386. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0755-1
  62. Hansson O, Edelmayer RM, Boxer AL, et al. The Alzheimer’s Association appropriate use recommendations for blood biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2022;18(12):2669-2686. doi: 10.1002/alz.12756
  63. Bateman RJ, Xiong C, Benzinger TL, et al. Clinical and biomarker changes in dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(9):795-804. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1202753
  64. Disanto G, Barro C, Benkert P, et al. Serum Neurofilament Light: A Biomarker of Neuronal Damage in Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2017;81(6):857-870. doi: 10.1002/ana.24954
  65. Bittner S, Oh J, Havrdová EK, Tintoré M, Zipp F. The potential of serum neurofilament as biomarker for multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2021;144(10):2954-2963. doi: 10.1093/brain/awab241
  66. Siller N, Kuhle J, Muthuraman M, et al. Serum neurofilament light chain is a biomarker of acute and chronic neuronal damage in early multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2019;25(5):678-686. doi: 10.1177/1352458518765666
  67. Kappos L, Freedman MS, Polman CH, et al. Effect of early versus delayed interferon beta-1b treatment on disability after a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a 3-year follow-up analysis of the BENEFIT study. Lancet. 2007;370(9585):389-397. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61194-5
  68. Bazarian JJ, Biberthaler P, Welch RD, et al. Serum GFAP and UCH-L1 for prediction of absence of intracranial injuries on head CT (ALERT-TBI): a multicentre observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(9):782-789. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(18)30231-x
  69. Wang KK, Yang Z, Zhu T, et al. An update on diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for traumatic brain injury. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2018;18(2):165-180. doi: 10.1080/14737159.2018.1428089
  70. Shahnawaz M, Tokuda T, Waragai M, et al. Development of a Biochemical Diagnosis of Parkinson Disease by Detection of α-Synuclein Misfolded Aggregates in Cerebrospinal Fluid. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74(2):163-172. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.4547
  71. Fairfoul G, McGuire LI, Pal S, et al. Alpha-synuclein RT-QuIC in the CSF of patients with alpha-synucleinopathies. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2016;3(10):812-818. doi: 10.1002/acn3.338
  72. Iranzo A, Fairfoul G, Ayudhaya AC, et al. Detection of α-synuclein in CSF by RT-QuIC in patients with isolated rapid-eye-movement sleep behaviour disorder: a longitudinal observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(3):203-212. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30449-X
  73. Fernandes BS, Williams LM, Steiner J, et al. The new field of ‘precision psychiatry’. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12916-017-0849-x
  74. Camacho-Zamora A, Rábago-Monzón ÁR, Armienta-Rojas DA, Camberos-Barraza J, De La Herrán-Arita AK. The gut– brain axis: Collective impact of psychosomatic conditions and gut microbiota on health and disease. J Clin Basic Psychosom. 2025;3(3):25. doi: 10.36922/jcbp025040008
  75. Raison CL, Rutherford RE, Woolwine BJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the tumor necrosis factor antagonist infliximab for treatment-resistant depression: the role of baseline inflammatory biomarkers. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70(1):31-41. doi: 10.1001/2013.jamapsychiatry.4
  76. Drysdale AT, Grosenick L, Downar J, et al. Resting-state connectivity biomarkers define neurophysiological subtypes of depression. Nat Med. 2017;23(1):28-38. doi: 10.1038/nm.4246
  77. Miotto R, Wang F, Wang S, et al. Deep learning for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges. Brief Bioinform. 2018;19(6):1236-1246. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx044
  78. Lundberg S, Lee SI. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. arXiv. Preprint posted online 2017. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1705.07874
  79. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
  80. Goetzl EJ, Kapogiannis D, Schwartz JB, et al. Decreased synaptic proteins in neuronal exosomes of frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. FASEB J. 2016;30(12):4141-4148. doi: 10.1096/fj.201600816R
  81. Baez S, Hernandez H, Moguilner S, et al. Structural inequality and temporal brain dynamics across diverse samples. Clin Transl Med. 2024;14(10):e70032. doi: 10.1002/ctm2.70032
Share
Back to top
Global Translational Medicine, Electronic ISSN: 2811-0021 Print ISSN: 3060-8600, Published by AccScience Publishing