NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
Read Original Story

New Brain Scan May Predict Alzheimer’s

Rating

2 Star

New Brain Scan May Predict Alzheimer’s

Our Review Summary

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. 

 

Why This Matters

 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.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

 There was no discussion about direct costs for this test.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

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.  

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

 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. 
 

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

 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.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

 The story did not engage in overt disease-mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

 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.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

 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’.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

 The story provided no insight about whether hospitals have the facilities needed for this test.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

 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.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Not Applicable

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.

Total Score: 3 of 9 Satisfactory

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.