Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36720642›Full record

ArticleNeurology2023

Testing for Alzheimer Disease Biomarkers and Disclosing Results Across the Disease Continuum.

Emily A Largent, Joshua D Grill, Kyra O'Brien, David Wolk, Kristin Harkins, Jason Karlawish

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Return of research results across the Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers network.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Emily A LargentFrom the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy (E.A.L., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia; Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (J.D.G.), and Department of Neurobiology and Behavior (J.D.G.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Neurology (K.O.B., D.W., J.K.), and Department of Medicine (K.H., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia. elargent@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7536-5077
Joshua D GrillFrom the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy (E.A.L., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia; Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (J.D.G.), and Department of Neurobiology and Behavior (J.D.G.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Neurology (K.O.B., D.W., J.K.), and Department of Medicine (K.H., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.ORCID 0000-0002-4215-7589
Kyra O'BrienFrom the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy (E.A.L., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia; Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (J.D.G.), and Department of Neurobiology and Behavior (J.D.G.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Neurology (K.O.B., D.W., J.K.), and Department of Medicine (K.H., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
David WolkFrom the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy (E.A.L., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia; Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (J.D.G.), and Department of Neurobiology and Behavior (J.D.G.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Neurology (K.O.B., D.W., J.K.), and Department of Medicine (K.H., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Kristin HarkinsFrom the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy (E.A.L., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia; Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (J.D.G.), and Department of Neurobiology and Behavior (J.D.G.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Neurology (K.O.B., D.W., J.K.), and Department of Medicine (K.H., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Jason KarlawishFrom the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy (E.A.L., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia; Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior (J.D.G.), and Department of Neurobiology and Behavior (J.D.G.), University of California, Irvine; Department of Neurology (K.O.B., D.W., J.K.), and Department of Medicine (K.H., J.K.), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.ORCID 0000-0002-6880-2865

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG072979 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Edward Byung-Ha Lee · 2021 to 2026
$24.8M
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE STUDY PARTNER REQUIREMENT IMPACTS THE DISCOVERY AND TRANSLATION OF PRECLINICAL ALZHEIMERS DISEASEK01AG064123 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LARGENT, EMILY · 2019 to 2023
$637k
NIA NIH HHS K01 AG064123NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072979
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three pathologic processes are characteristic of Alzheimer disease (AD): β-amyloid, hyperphosphorylated tau, and neurodegeneration. Our understanding of AD is undergoing a transformation due to our ability to measure biomarkers of these processes across different stages of cognitive impairment. There is growing interest in using AD biomarker tests in care and research and, with this, a growing need for guidance on how to return these sensitive results to patients and participants. Here, we propose a 5-step approach informed by clinical and research experience designing and implementing AD biomarker disclosure processes, extant evidence describing how individuals react to AD biomarker information, ethics, law, and the literature on breaking bad news. The clinician should (1) determine the appropriateness of AD biomarker testing and return of results for the particular patient or research participant. If testing is appropriate, the next steps are to (2) provide pretest education and seek consent for testing from the individual and their support person, (3) administer testing, (4) return the results to the individual and their support person, and (5) follow-up to promote the recipient's well-being.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkersEducational StatusHumanstau ProteinsAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkerstau Proteins

Identifiers

PMID36720642
PMCPMC10238153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.