Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41689240›Full record

ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2026

Leading by example: How the Webster team's systematic review quietly rebuked the field's preoccupation with biomarker "disclosure," and why it matters.

Jennifer H Lingler

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jennifer H LinglerBetty Irene Moore School of Nursing at University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3226-7722

Funding

Brain CHEC-AC (Brain and Cognitive Health Equity Campaign for Allegheny County)U01NS141777 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI JENNIFER Hagerty LINGLER, C. Elizabeth Shaaban · 2024 to 2026
$2.2M
Patient and Family Member Reactions to Biomarker-Informed ADRD DiagnosesRF1AG080591 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI GRILL, JOSHUA, LINGLER, JENNIFER HAGERTY · 2023 to 2023
$2.1M
Patient and Family Member Reactions to Biomarker-Informed ADRD DiagnosesR01AG080591 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Joshua Grill, JENNIFER Hagerty LINGLER · 2026 to 2026
$1.0M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG080591NIA NIH HHS RF1 AG080591NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS141777
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this issue, Webster and colleagues report findings and provide direction following a systematic review and evidence synthesis designed to understand the decisional needs of research participants considering whether to receive biomarker or genetic risk information. The report serves as a foundation for a future of participant-centered approaches to the return of individual results in Alzheimer's disease research. This Ethics Response comments on the authors' terminology choices highlighting the notable absence of references to disclosure. The Response concludes that alternative terms like return or sharing of results offer less stigmatizing and more patient-centered approaches to communicating biomarker and genetic test results.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseBiomarkersDisclosureHumansReturn of Individual Research ResultsSystematic Reviews as TopicBiomarkersAlzheimer’s diseasebiomarkerscommunicationreturn of results

Identifiers

PMID41689240
PMCPMC12960751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.