Home › Research › Biomarkers
Older US adults' experiences with and views about cognitive screening and blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease
Cox CG, Kirch M, Singer D, Solway E, Malani PN, Kullgren JT, Roberts JS.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025-01-16
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction Dementia is underdiagnosed in the United States. Understanding of older adults' experiences with screening is needed to optimize diagnosis. Methods US adults ages 65 to 80 ( N = 1298) were surveyed on experiences with cognitive screening and blood biomarker (BBM) testing. Regression models estimated associations between characteristics and screening use. Results Most older adults were aware of screening (71%); 41% reported ever being screened. Older age, higher education, retirement, poorer health, and family history of dementia were associated with higher odds of screening; Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian race/ethnicity were associated with lower odds ( p < .05). Most older adults were unaware of BBM (81%); few wanted testing immediately (9%). Although older adults held positive views about screening and BBM, half reported concerns about distress or stigma if tests indicated risk. Discussion Cognitive screening rates remain low. Older adults view screening and BBM as useful to inform health decisions but have concerns about potential harms. Highlights Only one in five older US adults report having cognitive screening in the past year.Sociodemographic and health factors may influence whether older adults receive cognitive screening.Most older adults have positive views about cognitive screening and BBM testing.Many older adults would be concerned about distress or stigma if test result indicated dementia risk.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cox, C. G., Kirch, M., Singer, D., Solway, E., Malani, P. N., Kullgren, J. T., et al. (2025). Older US adults' experiences with and views about cognitive screening and blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70067
Vancouver
Cox CG, Kirch M, Singer D, Solway E, Malani PN, Kullgren JT, et al. Older US adults' experiences with and views about cognitive screening and blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2025. doi:10.1002/dad2.70067. PMID: 39822297.
BibTeX
@article{cox2025-39822297,
author = {Cox, C. G. and Kirch, M. and Singer, D. and Solway, E. and Malani, P. N. and Kullgren, J. T. and Roberts, J. S.},
title = {{Older US adults' experiences with and views about cognitive screening and blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.70067},
pmid = {39822297},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.70067}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Most older adults were aware of screening (71%); 41% reported ever being screened.
- Older age, higher education, retirement, poorer health, and family history of dementia were associated with higher odds of screening; Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian race/ethnicity were associated with lower odds ( p < .05).
- Highlights Only one in five older US adults report having cognitive screening in the past year.Sociodemographic and health factors may influence whether older adults receive cognitive screening.Most older adults have positive views about cognitive screening and BBM testing.Many older adults would be concerned about distress or stigma if test result indicated dementia risk.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Participants1,298
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 59/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 59 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| 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 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,298 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 | — / 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 39822297) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 34 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 59 out of 100. |
| Total | 59 / 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.
Related studies in Biomarkers
Also tagged “cognitive-screening”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-screening”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.