Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42386684›Full record

ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association2026

What should convince a clinician of disease modification in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials?

Jemma Hazan, Kathy Y Liu, Robert Howard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 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

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

3 authors.

Jemma HazanDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7223-4768
Kathy Y LiuDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Robert HowardDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Alzheimer's Research UK CRTF2023B-003The Blood Biomarker Challenge (UCL ADAPT study)University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent publication of extension data from post-regulatory trials of amyloid-lowering antibody therapies, such as donanemab and lecanemab, requires clinicians to critically appraise trial designs and analyses in order to evaluate claims made by authors and sponsors of disease modification. This Perspective outlines the challenges with assessing claims of disease course modification, provides a framework for their evaluation, reviews the different trial designs and analytical approaches used to test or support them, and proposes a practical appraisal checklist for evaluating studies.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseClinical Trials as TopicHumansAlzheimer's diseaseamyloid‐loweringclinical trialdementiadisease modification

Identifiers

PMID42386684
PMCPMC13322988

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.