ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025
Biomarker-Driven Diagnosis in Neurocognitive Disorders: A Clinician's Perspective on the Risks of Reductionism.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recently published Alzheimer's Association Workgroup diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer disease and consensus-based workflows for the use of diagnostic biomarkers in neurocognitive disorders promote further normalization of purely biological approaches to neurocognitive disorders. In this commentary, we reflect on the dangers of biological reductionist positions lacking solid scientific evidence and proven cost-effectiveness benefits, in particular its inability to offer a meaningful formulation for the large number of people with functional cognitive disorders. This, alongside the current lack of standardization, limited accuracy, and environmental consequences, means that the normalization of biomarkers as standard-of-care tests in all neurocognitive presentations does not represent responsible innovation. We emphasize the need for pluralism when considering technological developments, such that clinical judgment and biopsychosocial formulation continue to be accepted as a sound foundation for cognitive assessment.
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.