Alzheimer's blood test catches 90% of early dementia cases, study finds
cnn.com
cnn.com
Seems like we currently spend about $4 billion a year.
https://www.alz.org/news/2024/congress-bipartisan-funding-al....
Americans spend about as much on Halloween candy:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305961/halloween-candy-....
The actual article, for those interested, is here:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2821669?gu...
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/193467/total-league-reve...
By the way, 100% of the time I make my observation, someone makes a similar comment as yours. Considering I’ve been making my observation for decades, I’m beginning to wonder why it’s not obvious to everyone.
This is why rich folks like Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, Genghis Khan or whomever don't traditionally invest 90% of their net worth in curing senescence, even though they all suffer from it and would get huge personal benefit if it could be cured.
It would certainly be a wonderful thing if Alzheimer's could be cured but I can't imagine how you could demonstrate this other than calling for optimism.
Lastly, the claim that "we only spend x amount on y disease" is flawed. Alzheimer's is an extremely complex disease because it has to do with the degeneration of the neurons in our brain. Our understanding of the brain is still limited, which means we likely need to understand the brain more in general in order to understand Alzheimer's disease, which is a special case of brain function in general. That being the case, I think a lot neurological research is helping Alzheimer's in some way, even if it is not labeled as such. To give the most extreme and obvious example, the discovery of neurons itself can be considered research of Alzheimer's, even though the researchers had no such intention. Taking this view further, we can consider research in ancillary fields like gene sequencing to be aiding in Alzheimer's research. It may be something that comes down to fully or almost fully mapping out the brain and the functions of all its relevant genes in order to solve the problem. I doubt such as massive undertaking would labeled as "Alzheimer's research."
Not to say that we shouldn't fund more, but Alzheimer's (as a single disease) receives some of the highest funding levels from the NIH. Looking at https://report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending#/ (categories are non-exclusive btw), Alzheimer's is 'outranked' by like... cancer (all of cancer at 8 billion 2024 vs 3.8), all of infectious diseases (8 billion again), and all of 'rare diseases' (6.8 billion). All of women's health, and mental health also get ~4.5 billion of funding.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
Cancer is terrible, Alzheimer's is terrible (and I'm glad I don't have to be the one making the funding allocation)
The article says that the blood test (if positive) is followed up with a scan to confirm the diagnosis, but if there were to be a lot of false positives that wouldn't be so simple.
EDIT: okay, reading the original paper, appears the false positive and false negative rates are pretty much equal.