This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

29/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 29 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

As of April 3, 2025, 944 HCPs (neurologists 14%, geriatricians 5%, primary care providers 25%) and 2,269 P/Cs engaged with the contents. Baseline HCP data highlighted deficiencies in their familiarity with diagnostic criteria (48% correct), evidence on anti-amyloid therapy in the treatment of early AD (43% correct), and strategies for evaluating patients at risk for ARIA (50% correct). Participation led to significantly higher performance on the posttest (+23% increase on average), and enhanced confidence in engaging patients in treatment-related discussions (22% pre vs 55% post). HCPs reported uncertainty around diagnosis, cost-related constraints, and logistical challenges as the main barriers to utilizing newly approved anti-amyloid therapies in clinical practice. Among P/Cs, 78% expressed interest in new therapies, but 56% were concerned about side effects, and many cited cost, limited access to specialists, and fear of insurance discrimination following an AD diagnosis as barriers to care. P/C learners submitted questions about blood-based biomarker tests, trial eligibility, and strategies for engaging clinicians in the diagnostic process. HCPs continue to build up the knowledge and competence needed to diagnose early AD and address the complexities of integrating anti-amyloid therapy in clinical practice. P/Cs are interested in new treatments but remain concerned about access, side effects, and stigma. These findings point to critical gaps in readiness and alignment that must be addressed to support the effective adoption of available therapies.

Key findings

As of April 3, 2025, 944 HCPs (neurologists 14%, geriatricians 5%, primary care providers 25%) and 2,269 P/Cs engaged with the contents.
Baseline HCP data highlighted deficiencies in their familiarity with diagnostic criteria (48% correct), evidence on anti-amyloid therapy in the treatment of early AD (43% correct), and strategies for evaluating patients at risk for ARIA (50% correct).
Participation led to significantly higher performance on the posttest (+23% increase on average), and enhanced confidence in engaging patients in treatment-related discussions (22% pre vs 55% post).
HCPs reported uncertainty around diagnosis, cost-related constraints, and logistical challenges as the main barriers to utilizing newly approved anti-amyloid therapies in clinical practice.
Among P/Cs, 78% expressed interest in new therapies, but 56% were concerned about side effects, and many cited cost, limited access to specialists, and fear of insurance discrimination following an AD diagnosis as barriers to care.

Why it matters

Health care providers showed gaps in familiarity with diagnostic criteria, evidence on anti-amyloid therapy for early Alzheimer's disease, and strategies for evaluating ARIA risk, but their test performance and confidence improved after participating in the education. Patients and caregivers were interested in new therapies yet concerned about side effects, cost, limited specialist access, and insurance discrimination.

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. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 28 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 29 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (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	4 / 5	2025 — 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	0 / 7	Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
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	— / 4	OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Sydnee Robin Singer holds only 2 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record	0 / 3	BrightFocus Foundation: institution h-index 27 (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 41434512)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	28 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 29 out of 100.
Total	29 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

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. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Gupta, V. V., Drexel, C., Chin, N. A., Kaiser, S. A., Trinh, D., Lynn, N. B., et al. (2025). Parallel Paths, Uneven Progress: Health Care Provider and Patient Perspectives on Anti‐Amyloid Therapies for Early AD. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70861_108349

Vancouver

Gupta VV, Drexel C, Chin NA, Kaiser SA, Trinh D, Lynn NB, et al. Parallel Paths, Uneven Progress: Health Care Provider and Patient Perspectives on Anti‐Amyloid Therapies for Early AD. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz70861_108349. PMID: 41434512.

BibTeX

@article{gupta2025-41434512,
  author  = {Gupta, Vandana V. and Drexel, Carole and Chin, Nathaniel A. and Kaiser, Scott A. and Trinh, Dung and Lynn, Nancy B. and Kenny, Brooks and Parsons, Monica and others},
  title   = {{Parallel Paths, Uneven Progress: Health Care Provider and Patient Perspectives on Anti‐Amyloid Therapies for Early AD}},
  journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1002/alz70861_108349},
  pmid    = {41434512},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz70861_108349}
}

Related studies in Treatments

Also in Treatments

166 studies in the library are filed under Treatments with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Treatments hub.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →