Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34692986›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2021

Disclosure of individual research results at federally funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers.

J Scott Roberts, Rebecca Ferber, Deborah Blacker, Malia Rumbaugh, Joshua D Grill, Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia (AGREED)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Return of research results across the Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers network.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Consortium for Clarity in ADRD Research Through Imaging (CLARiTI).Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Biomarker disclosure protocols in prodromal Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Moving beyond disclosure: Stages of care in preclinical Alzheimer's disease biomarker testing.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Communicating and Using Dementia Risk Evidence.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

J Scott RobertsDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education University of Michigan School of Public Health Ann Arbor Michigan USA.
Rebecca FerberDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education University of Michigan School of Public Health Ann Arbor Michigan USA.
Deborah BlackerMassachusetts General Hospital Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA.
Malia RumbaughDepartment of Medical and Molecular Genetics Indiana University School of Medicine Indianapolis Indiana USA.
Joshua D GrillInstitute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders University of California Irvine Irvine California USA.
Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia (AGREED)

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG072931 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DOUGLAS C NOLL · 2021 to 2026
$26.5M
Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Core CenterP30AG053760 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ALBIN, ROGER L · 2016 to 2020
$10.1M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG053760NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072931
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study describes practices for disclosing individual research results to participants in Alzheimer's disease research.

methodsAn online survey of clinical core leaders at National Institutes of Health-funded Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers in the United States (response rate: 30/31, 97%) examined return of results practices across nine different types of research results.

resultsMost centers had returned consensus research diagnoses (83%) and neuropsychological test results (73%), with fewer having shared amyloid positron emission tomography (43%), tau imaging (10%), or apolipoprotein E ( DISCUSSION: Centers varied widely as to whether and how they disclosed research results. Diagnostic and cognitive test results were more commonly returned than genetic or biomarker results.

Indexed as

biomarkersgenetic testingresearch ethicsreturn of research resultsrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID34692986
PMCPMC8515553

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.