Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41896998›Full record

ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2026

Long-term impact of disclosing amyloid PET results to individuals with subjective cognitive decline.

Jetske van der Schaar, Wiesje M van der Flier, Leonie N C Visser, Elsmarieke van de Giessen, Argonde C van Harten, Sietske A M Sikkes, Mardou S S A van Leeuwenstijn-Koopman, Heleen M A Hendriksen, Calvin Trieu, Annelien L Bredenoord and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 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

12 authors.

Jetske van der SchaarSection Genomics of Neurodegenerative Diseases and Aging, Department of Human Genetics, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands. jetske.vanderschaar@amsterdamumc.nl.
Wiesje M van der FlierAmsterdam Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration, Research & Diagnostics Center (RDC) - ADORE, Van der Boechorststraat 6B, Amsterdam, 1081 BT, The Netherlands.
Leonie N C VisserAmsterdam Public Health, Quality of Care, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam, 1081 BT, The Netherlands.
Elsmarieke van de GiessenDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Argonde C van HartenAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Sietske A M SikkesAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Mardou S S A van Leeuwenstijn-KoopmanAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Heleen M A HendriksenAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Calvin TrieuAlzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Annelien L BredenoordErasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, Rotterdam, 3062 PA, The Netherlands.
Mariette A van den HovenDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eva C A AsscherDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Health∼Holland, Topsector Life Sciences & Health LSHM20106∼Holland, Topsector Life Sciences & Health LSHM20106ZonMw 73305095007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiomarker assessments increasingly inform the diagnostic evaluation and treatment decisions in Alzheimer disease (AD). However, evidence on the impact of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) disclosure is primarily derived from studies of cognitively unimpaired trial participants with follow-up limited to 18 months. In contrast, long-term implications for individuals with cognitive concerns who seek medical evaluation in memory clinics remain unknown. We aimed to examine the psychosocial and behavioral impact three years after amyloid PET disclosure in individuals presenting with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) at a memory clinic.

methodsIn-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 participants from the Subjective Cognitive Impairment Cohort (SCIENCe) (67 ± 7 years; 5 female; 10 amyloid positive) 35 ± 4 months post-disclosure. All had SCD at imaging; one had progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at interview. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed inductively.

resultsParticipants’ motivations for testing and long-term adaptation to the results were strongly shaped by cognitive concerns and personal experiences of dementia in relatives. All demonstrated accurate comprehension of their amyloid status. Those with negative scans described immediate relief and reattributed memory lapses to normal aging, while recognizing that the reassurance was provisional. Although positive scans provoked initial shock and fear of deterioration, participants valued information over uncertainty, and over time, fear attenuated as they perceived no rapid decline. Both groups regarded results as meaningful and personally actionable, informing health behavior, life priorities, and preparations for future decline. Fourteen of 17 participants spontaneously mentioned considering options for self-determined end-of-life. Regardless of amyloid status, most participants shared their result with close relatives and friends, some also informed colleagues or acquaintances, while others limited communication to avoid stigma, protect loved ones, or reduce the burden of repeated explanations. Participants valued testing, expressed no regret, and would choose disclosure again.

conclusionsThree years after disclosure, participants generally had adjusted to living with their imaging result, finding personal meaning and practical engagement without reporting ongoing psychological harm. Some reported residual concerns and uncertainty, irrespective of amyloid status. These findings offer timely guidance for clinicians and patients as biomarker disclosure is more widely incorporated into routine practice.

Indexed as

AmyloidCognitive DysfunctionDisclosurePositron-Emission TomographyAgedAlzheimer DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReturn of Individual Research ResultsAmyloidAlzheimer’s diseaseAmyloid petBehavioral impactBiomarker disclosureEuthanasiaPatient experiencePatient perspectivePhysician-assisted suicidePsychosocial impactSubjective cognitive decline

Identifiers

PMID41896998
PMCPMC13151223

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.