ReviewNeurology2026
Blood-Based Biomarkers for Alzheimer Disease in Primary Care: The Gap Between Biology and Clinical Utility.
Review in Neurology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) for Alzheimer disease (AD) have accelerated the prospect of earlier and more accessible detection of AD pathology, potentially beyond specialist settings. However, their introduction in primary care raises important questions about clinical sequencing, interpretability, pathway consequences, and real-world utility. In this Personal View, we argue that the main barrier to responsible implementation is not analytical performance alone, but the absence of a sufficiently defined diagnostic infrastructure in which a test result has a clear and actionable role. In low-prevalence and clinically heterogeneous primary care populations, inadequate clinical anchoring and unstable pretest probability may undermine interpretability and promote category drift from diagnostic testing towards case-finding or quasiscreening. Moreover, the value of a rule-out strategy depends on whether a negative result meaningfully changes management. Until stronger evidence, clearer guidance, and appropriate service conditions are in place, primary care use of AD BBMs should remain selective, clinically anchored, and pathway-dependent.
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.