Home › Research › Biomarkers
A Decade of Protecting Progress: Ethics Review
Allyson C Rosen, James A Lavacot, Victoria Klee, Yuval Luria, Malia Rumbaugh. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2024
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Ethics Review began a decade ago with a mission to identify ethical concerns that hold back innovation and to promote solutions that would move the field forward. Over this time, blood biomarkers for brain pathology and medications that treat that pathology promise to transform research and care. A central problem is that the evidence needed to guide test interpretation and practice is accumulating and there are unanswered questions. At the same time, people living with and at risk for dementia want access to their test results and involvement in their care. We promote dialog among diverse people across many institutions through collaboration with the Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia (AGREEDementia.org). Over the years Ethics Review continues to publish these dialogs and solutions to overcome the paralysis of indecision and ethical concerns.
Key findings
- At the same time, people living with and at risk for dementia want access to their test results and involvement in their care.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39031372) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 24 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Rosen, A. C., Lavacot, J. A., Klee, V., Luria, Y., & Rumbaugh, M. (2024). A Decade of Protecting Progress: Ethics Review. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240634
Vancouver
Rosen AC, Lavacot JA, Klee V, Luria Y, Rumbaugh M. A Decade of Protecting Progress: Ethics Review. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2024. doi:10.3233/jad-240634. PMID: 39031372.
BibTeX
@article{rosen2024-39031372,
author = {Rosen, Allyson C and Lavacot, James A and Klee, Victoria and Luria, Yuval and Rumbaugh, Malia},
title = {{A Decade of Protecting Progress: Ethics Review}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3233/jad-240634},
pmid = {39031372},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240634}
}