ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Biological Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Based on Amyloid Status: An Illustration of Confirmation Bias in Medical Research?
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of the Clock Drawing Test in Differential Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease: Clinical Findings in Relation to CSF Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Alzheimer Syndrome or Age-Related Dementia-History, Therapy and Prevention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Physics of Protein Aggregation in Normal and Accelerated Brain Aging.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of machine learning models for the prediction of Alzheimer's: In search of the best performance.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025Article
- Multiomics Blood-Based Biomarkers Predict Alzheimer's Predementia with High Specificity in a Multicentric Cohort Study.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2024Article
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
Alzheimer's disease (AD) was first characterized by Dr. Alois Alzheimer in 1906 by studying a demented patient and discovering cerebral amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. Subsequent research highlighted the roles of Aβ peptides and tau proteins, which are the primary constituents of these lesions, which led to the amyloid cascade hypothesis. Technological advances, such as PET scans using Florbetapir, have made it possible to visualize amyloid plaques in living patients, thus improving AD's risk assessment. The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association introduced biological diagnostic criteria in 2011, which underlined the amyloid deposits diagnostic value. However, potential confirmation bias may have led researchers to over-rely on amyloid markers independent of AD's symptoms, despite evidence of their limited specificity. This review provides a critical examination of the current research paradigm in AD, including, in particular, the predominant focus on amyloid and tau species in diagnostics. We discuss the potential multifaceted consequences of this approach and propose strategies to mitigate its overemphasis in the development of new biomarkers. Furthermore, our study presents comprehensive guidelines aimed at enhancing the creation of biomarkers for accurately predicting AD dementia onset. These innovations are crucial for refining patient selection processes in clinical trial enrollment and for the optimization of therapeutic strategies. Overcoming confirmation bias is essential to advance the diagnosis and treatment of AD and to move towards precision medicine by incorporating a more nuanced understanding of amyloid biomarkers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.