This is a story reporting on a very recent paper with results suggesting that diffusion MRI may be used as a tool for assessing memory function and may thus someday have a role in predicting future cognitive decline including that of Alzheimer’s disease. However the research itself did not involve individuals with Alzheimer’s disease, nor did it study individuals over time to establish whether the technique could be used to predict changes that occur for a given individual.
The story provided only the best case scenario for the value of this technique while acknowledging that ‘a good clinical evaluation’ is still the best tool available.
For individuals concerned about development about Alzheimer’s disease, this article is overly enthusiastic about the promise of this scan for enhancing the ability to detect Alzheimer’s disease.
There was no discussion about direct costs for this test.
The story always qualified any potential benefit as possibility by qualifying every claim with the term ‘may’. It would have improved this piece to include an explicit statement that there is currently no way to quantify what the benefit of early detection might be.
The story did not mention that 13% of the individuals in the study were unable to complete the test due to claustrophobia and that for 17% of the individuals tested, there were technical difficulties which made their test results unusable.
Although it was good that the story qualified every claim made for this new method of assessment with the term "may" ( as in ‘may prove useful’), it did not mention that the study merely assessed a group of individuals at a single time point and found that this test correlated with some verbal tests of memory. Because it is not possible to determine whether what appears to be age-related differences may relate to other ways in which the tested individuals differ, it is premature to conclude that this test will be found to successfully distinguish between those who will and will not develop Alzheimer’s Disease. In fact, since individuals with cognitive impairment were from excluded from the study, the study did not provide any evidence that the test could actually distinguish between people with and without Alzheimer’s Disease, let alone those who will develop the disease.
The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering.
The story did include a quote from a neurologist who did not appear to be directly connected with the study. That said, his comments were general in nature and were not explicitly about the research reported on.
The story mentioned that the testing procedure reported on ‘shows evidence of being more sensitive’ than other tests, while acknowledging that ‘a good clinical evaluation is still the best tool’.
The story provided no insight about whether hospitals have the facilities needed for this test.
While the story reported on a most recent study using DTI technology for assessment of Alzheimer’s disease, there is medical literature on this dating back several years, a context the story didn’t provide.
We can’t be sure of the extent to which the story was primarily driven by a news release. The story acknowledges that the quote from the lead author of the research came from a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like