ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Ethical challenges in the clinical translation of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer's disease: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The development and evaluation of anti-amyloid beta monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease have been accompanied by extensive ethical debate spanning clinical trials, regulatory processes, prescribing practices, and healthcare delivery. This scoping review examined literature published between 2006 and 2026 to identify and clarify the landscape of ethical considerations surrounding the implementation, prescribing, and delivery of anti-amyloid mAbs across both research and clinical settings. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid EBM Reviews (including CENTRAL and CDSR) from 2006 to March 2026 using a structured search strategy. Eligible publications focused on ethical issues associated with the clinical translation of anti-amyloid mAbs. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, with duplicate extraction performed on an initial subset of publications. The review was conducted using JBI guidance and reported according to PRISMA-ScR. Results: We identified 84 publications from 23 countries published between 2014 and 2026, including 12 original research studies, 1 systematic review, and 71 commentaries, narrative reviews, legal analyses, or practice guidelines. Analysis identified 32 subthemes, which were synthesized into 7 overarching themes: (1) beneficence and nonmaleficence, (2) respect for persons, (3) equity and accessibility, (4) evidence and trial integrity, (5) governance and stewardship, (6) relational and social impacts, and (7) health system readiness and sustainability. Among the 32 subthemes, uncertain clinical benefit and risk of harm (both within the beneficence and nonmaleficence theme) were discussed most frequently within the literature, each appearing in 61 publications. Conclusions: The biomedical literature documents a broad range of ethical considerations relating to anti-amyloid mAbs. Despite this growing literature, it is primarily based on commentary, with few empirical studies, and even fewer incorporating the perspectives of patients, families, and clinicians. Doing so may add further context and nuance to ethical discussion about mAbs in the years ahead.
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.