Observational studyJAMA network open2025
Research Participant Interest in Learning Results of Biomarker Tests for Alzheimer Disease.
Observational study in JAMA network open, 2025. 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.
- Technology-natives and technology-adopters: Age differences in remote cognitive assessment in Alzheimer disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 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
- Examining the Decision to Take a Dementia Risk Test: Considerations for Privacy in Screening At-Home.Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders · 2026Article
- Willingness and barriers to blood-based biomarker testing of Alzheimer's disease in the general population in the Czech Republic.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2026Article
- Return of results is important to heterogeneous research participants: A single-site survey.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Recommended approaches to sharing individual research results in Alzheimer's disease research: A multidisciplinary expert Delphi consensus.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: While available evidence suggests there are not major psychosocial harms of return of research results, there are limited data on uptake of Alzheimer disease (AD) research results or reasons for declining to learn results among participants in AD research studies. Objectives: To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate who declines to learn individual AD biomarker research results and what factors are associated with the decision. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study was conducted between November 1, 2020, and April 15, 2024, among participants aged 65 years or older with unimpaired cognition and available biomarker data (apolipoprotein E genotype and either imaging [amyloid positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging] or plasma amyloid level) enrolled in a longitudinal cohort of cognitive aging at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center. Exposure: Participants with no prior option to receive research results were offered the option to learn these results. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was the decision to receive AD research biomarker results. Associations of this decision with demographic factors including self-identified race, parental history of AD, age, gender, and type of biomarker result offered (imaging or plasma) were assessed using χ2 tests and semiparametric log-binomial regression. Semistructured qualitative interviews with a subset of participants who declined receiving research results explored reasons for declining. Results: Of the 274 participants who were offered their research results (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [5.8] years; 158 women [58%]; 35 Black [13%]; and 239 White [87%]), 110 (40%) declined. Black participants were more likely to decline than White participants (adjusted risk ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.43-2.50). Participants with a known parental history of AD dementia were more likely to decline than those without (adjusted risk ratio, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98). Qualitative interviews found the following reasons for declining: knowing would be a burden, negative experiences and perceptions of AD dementia, feeling good about memory currently, familial burden, already being prepared, and the uncertainty of results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of participants enrolled in a longitudinal aging study offered their research results, those with a parental history of AD dementia and Black participants were significantly more likely to decline. Qualitative interviews suggest that a family history of AD may create negative experiences and perceptions of the disease, which may influence the decision to learn results. Further research is needed to better understand racial differences in uptake and ensure that the choice to receive research results reflects individual preferences and wishes.
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.