Home › Research › Treatments
“Doctor, if it were you, which would you choose?”: Navigating personal preference questions in anti‐amyloid immunotherapy selection
Eric Dinnerstein. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring, 2026-04-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The approval of lecanemab and donanemab represents a watershed moment in Alzheimer Disease (AD) treatment, yet clinicians face a novel challenge: guiding patients through treatment selection when head-to-head comparative data are absent. When confronted with the question "What would you do if you were me?", clinical providers must balance evidence-based medicine with the therapeutic alliance. This perspective examines the ethical, practical, and relational dimensions of responding to personal preference queries in the context of anti-amyloid immunotherapy selection, offering a framework for authentic engagement that honors both professional boundaries and patient-centered care.
Key findings
- The approval of lecanemab and donanemab represents a watershed moment in Alzheimer Disease (AD) treatment, yet clinicians face a novel challenge: guiding patients through treatment selection when head-to-head comparative data are absent.
- When confronted with the question "What would you do if you were me?", clinical providers must balance evidence-based medicine with the therapeutic alliance.
- This perspective examines the ethical, practical, and relational dimensions of responding to personal preference queries in the context of anti-amyloid immunotherapy selection, offering a framework for authentic engagement that honors both professional boundaries and patient-centered care.
Why it matters
This perspective addresses how clinicians should respond when patients ask which anti-amyloid immunotherapy the clinician would choose, given that head-to-head comparative data are absent. It offers a framework for balancing evidence-based medicine with the therapeutic alliance, but provides no data on treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 29/100
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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring: journal h-index 86 (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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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 | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 1 / 4 | Last-listed author Eric Dinnerstein: h-index 6 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | The University of Texas at Tyler: institution h-index 140 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42318437) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 29 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1002/dad2.70373
- PubMed: 42318437
- Original source →
- Free full text: Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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
Dinnerstein, E. (2026). “Doctor, if it were you, which would you choose?”: Navigating personal preference questions in anti‐amyloid immunotherapy selection. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring. https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70373
Vancouver
Dinnerstein E. “Doctor, if it were you, which would you choose?”: Navigating personal preference questions in anti‐amyloid immunotherapy selection. Alzheimer s & Dementia Diagnosis Assessment & Disease Monitoring. 2026. doi:10.1002/dad2.70373. PMID: 42318437.
BibTeX
@article{dinnerstein2026-42318437,
author = {Dinnerstein, Eric},
title = {{“Doctor, if it were you, which would you choose?”: Navigating personal preference questions in anti‐amyloid immunotherapy selection}},
journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia Diagnosis Assessment \& Disease Monitoring},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.70373},
pmid = {42318437},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70373}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.