Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41787900›Full record

ArticleEthics & human research

Addressing Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Studies: Never Easy, Rarely Rescue.

Hayden P Nix

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics & human research. 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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Hayden P NixInternal medicine resident physician in the Department of Medicine at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Population-wide neuroimaging studies reveal brain lesions in approximately 3% of putatively healthy research participants. It is unclear how researchers ought to address this problem and whether they should seek out incidental findings. Koplin and colleagues argue that researchers have a duty of easy rescue and therefore a duty to look for and disclose potentially serious incidental findings to research participants in neuroimaging studies. In this article, I argue that the duty of easy rescue is an inappropriate approach to this ethical problem. The duty of easy rescue paradigmatically applies to cases in which the intervention is (1) minimally burdensome to the rescuer, (2) virtually certain to minimally burden the individual in danger, and (3) virtually certain to confer benefit to the individual in danger. By contrast, looking for and disclosing potentially serious incidental findings is (1) often burdensome to researchers, (2) poses the risk of burdening research participants with false positive findings, and (3) even when a potentially serious incidental finding is found, disclosed, and medically managed, doing so may not confer benefit to the research participant. The duty of easy rescue is not a useful tool for navigating the ethical problems raised by incidental findings in population-wide neuroimaging research.

Indexed as

DisclosureIncidental FindingsNeuroimagingResearch SubjectsEthical DilemmasHumansReturn of Individual Research Resultsancillary care obligationsbrain scansduty to disclosehuman subjects researchinformed consentmedical imaging research

Identifiers

PMID41787900
PMCPMC12963947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.