Home › Research › Biomarkers
Comprehension of an Elevated Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Biomarker Result by Cognitively Normal Older Adults
Mozersky J, Sankar P, Harkins K, Hachey S, Karlawish J.. JAMA neurology, 2018-01-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Objective To determine the comprehension of an elevated amyloid positron emission tomographic (PET) biomarker result by cognitively unimpaired adults. Design, setting, and participants The Study of Knowledge and Reactions to Amyloid Testing, a substudy of an AD prevention trial, involved 2 semistructured telephone interviews with 80 participants recruited from 9 study sites: 50 received elevated and 30 received not elevated amyloid PET scan results. Interviews were conducted 4 to 12 weeks after result disclosure and again 1 year later. The 50 participants included in this study were cognitively normal, aged 65 to 85 years, evenly distributed by gender, and had elevated amyloid PET results. Subsequent reports will examine persons with "not elevated" results and compare the influence of the different results. Main outcomes and measures Participant comprehension of an elevated amyloid result was assessed by analyzing their responses to the following questions: "What was the result of your amyloid PET scan?" (followed by "Can you tell me in your own words what that means?" or "How would you explain it to a friend?"), "Was it the result you expected?" and "Did the result teach you anything or clarify anything for you?" Results Of the 50 participants aged 65 to 85 years, 49 (98%) were white, 40 (80%) reported a family history of AD, and 30 (60%) had a postgraduate educational level. Some desired understanding of the term elevated other than its being a categorical result enabling trial entry eligibility; they wanted information regarding how elevated their amyloid was, how close to the study threshold they were, or percentages, numbers, or a scale to help them make sense of the result.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mozersky, J., Sankar, P., Harkins, K., Hachey, S., & Karlawish, J. (2018). Comprehension of an Elevated Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Biomarker Result by Cognitively Normal Older Adults. JAMA neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2954
Vancouver
Mozersky J, Sankar P, Harkins K, Hachey S, Karlawish J. Comprehension of an Elevated Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Biomarker Result by Cognitively Normal Older Adults. JAMA neurology. 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2954. PMID: 29059270.
BibTeX
@article{mozersky2018-29059270,
author = {Mozersky, J. and Sankar, P. and Harkins, K. and Hachey, S. and Karlawish, J.},
title = {{Comprehension of an Elevated Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Biomarker Result by Cognitively Normal Older Adults}},
journal = {JAMA neurology},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2954},
pmid = {29059270},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2954}
}
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.
Key findings
- Objective To determine the comprehension of an elevated amyloid positron emission tomographic (PET) biomarker result by cognitively unimpaired adults.
- Design, setting, and participants The Study of Knowledge and Reactions to Amyloid Testing, a substudy of an AD prevention trial, involved 2 semistructured telephone interviews with 80 participants recruited from 9 study sites: 50 received elevated and 30 received not elevated amyloid PET scan results.
- Interviews were conducted 4 to 12 weeks after result disclosure and again 1 year later.
- The 50 participants included in this study were cognitively normal, aged 65 to 85 years, evenly distributed by gender, and had elevated amyloid PET results.
- Subsequent reports will examine persons with "not elevated" results and compare the influence of the different results.
Why it matters
In telephone interviews with 50 cognitively normal adults aged 65–85 in an Alzheimer's prevention trial who were told their amyloid PET scan was "elevated", some wanted more than a yes/no label: they asked "how elevated their amyloid was, how close to the study threshold they were," or for "percentages, numbers, or a scale." The group was 98% white and 60% postgraduate-educated, so the results may not carry over to other people. The study looked at how people understand a scan result; it did not test any treatment.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants80
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | JAMA Neurology: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 80 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 4 / 7 | Cited 72 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 7.2 citations a year over 10 year(s) since 2018 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 6.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 7 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 15 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 3 / 4 | Last-listed author Jason H. Karlawish: h-index 88 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Washington University in St. Louis: institution h-index 1,962 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29059270) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2954
- PubMed: 29059270
- Original source →
- Free full text: PubMed Central →
Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
7 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “classification”
835 studies in the library carry the topic tag “classification”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 835 tagged studies.