ReviewNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2021
Ethical Considerations in Communicating Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Biomarker Test Results to Symptomatic Individuals.
Review in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Just Semantics? How Diagnostic Criteria Influence Physician-Patient Narratives in Alzheimer's Disease.Neuro-degenerative diseases · 2026Article
- No cognitive or psychological impact from returning research Alzheimer disease biomarkers: A delayed-start, noninferiority, randomized clinical trial.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Leading by example: How the Webster team's systematic review quietly rebuked the field's preoccupation with biomarker "disclosure," and why it matters.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Article
- Review
- The roles of biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Review
- Recommended approaches to sharing individual research results in Alzheimer's disease research: A multidisciplinary expert Delphi consensus.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Article
- The duality of disease: the Alzheimer's disease dilemma through the lens of nosos and asthenia.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2025Article
- From data to discovery: Neuroinformatics in understanding Alzheimer's disease.Journal of biosciences · 2025Review
- The novel imaging methods in diagnosis and assessment of cerebrovascular diseases: an overview.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Expert Stakeholder Perspectives on Emerging Technology for Neuroimaging Research with Highly Portable MRI: The Need for Guidance on Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024Article
- "And Does That Necessarily Mean Absolutely Alzheimer's?" An Analysis of Questions Raised Following Amyloid PET Results Disclosure.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2024Article
- What are We Asking Patients to Do? A Critical Ethical Review of the Limits of Patient Self-Advocacy in the Oncology Setting.The New bioethics : a multidisciplinary journal of biotechnology and the body · 2023Article
- Neuroimaging Advances in Neurologic and Neurodegenerative Diseases.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article examines ethical issues associated with the return of AD neuroimaging results to cognitively symptomatic individuals. Following a review of research on patient and study partner reactions to learning the results of biomarker testing for AD, we examine ethical issues that will be of increasing significance as the field transitions to an era wherein disease-modifying treatments for AD become available. We first review the ethical justification for returning AD biomarker results to individuals who desire them. We then address a more novel question: whether, and to what extent, clinicians or clinical researchers should influence the decisions of individuals who are potentially reluctant to learn their AD imaging results. We argue that in many cases, it is ethically correct to explore, and sometimes alter, factors that may be inhibiting one's desire to know these test results. Our argument is grounded in the premise that having more complete information about changes that may be happening in one's brain will generally yield more informed participation in decisions about one's own care, thereby promoting autonomy. Finally, on the assumption that we have established that it is frequently ethically correct to try to communicate testing information, we examine considerations regarding (not whether but) how this is best accomplished, discussing the concept of responsible transparency. We suggest that both (1) explorations of why one may or may not want to learn results of AD biomarker imaging and (2) the responsible return of such test results is best accomplished using a transactional model of communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.