ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2018
Cognitively Healthy Individuals Want to Know Their Risk for Alzheimer's Disease: What Should We Do?
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Just Semantics? How Diagnostic Criteria Influence Physician-Patient Narratives in Alzheimer's Disease.Neuro-degenerative diseases · 2026Article
- Primary Prevention of Dementia: An Ethical Review.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2021Review
- Disclosure of preclinical Alzheimer's disease biomarker results in research and clinical settings: Why, how, and what we still need to know.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- The clinical practice of risk reduction for Alzheimer's disease: A precision medicine approach.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2018Observational
- Precision Medicine for Alzheimer's Disease Prevention.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Feasibility of virtual Alzheimer's biomarker disclosure: Findings from an observational cohort.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Richard Milne and colleagues (2018) present the results of a study to discover what cognitively unimpaired research participants hope to gain by learning Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker results and the associated risk for AD dementia. Their results are useful to develop procedures to safely disclose AD biomarker results in prevention trials. They also foreshadow the ethical and pragmatic challenges of using AD biomarkers in routine clinical practice. What is currently known is largely from studies of cognitively unimpaired or mildly impaired individuals who learned they had genetic markers of AD. Little is known about learning biomarker results. Milne and colleagues found that participants expect they will routinely learn risk reduction strategies and have access to follow up care. Can we meet these expectations? Mixed evidence supports effective therapies for delaying symptoms of AD and virtually nonexistent evidence guides prevention of AD. Healthcare resources, including follow-up, are designed to manage patients who have clinical symptoms-not the potentially large numbers of unimpaired individuals. To meet these needs, researchers who disclose AD biomarker results to cognitively unimpaired research participants may have an obligation to develop effective interventions and provide follow up care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29480203What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.