If it turns out that driving a Prius on Tuesdays slows down Alzheimer’s, a larger pool of subjects would allow us to figure that out.
It's also better for people around the Alzheimer's patient, as it will let them understand why someone's personality and behaviours may be changing, and possibly let them be bit more forgiving of such changes. It will also give family more time to plan and understand the health and community services and support are offered wherever they live.
Everyone should assume that they could lose their full mental capacity at any moment. Strokes, brain injuries, etc. can occur at any age with no warning.
My wife and I finally went through the entire estate planning process several years ago. It was comforting to know that we had a plan for a myriad of scenarios (including the incredibly depressing decision of where our assets would go if our entire family—us and our kids—was gone at the same time).
Best these type of drugs can do is give you a few months extra window (say 4-6 months). They're not a cure. Sadly.
This is all new. There is research hinting at Alzheimer's subtypes, some of which are more likely to respond than others. Even halting the decline is a huge potential breakthrough.
Time will tell if the 30% slowdown continues beyond four years, and/or if earlier treatment with more effective amyloid clearance from newer drugs has greater effects. The science suggests it should.
> her mental acuity scores are (slightly) better than they were last year
My grandfather had a "fall" at work, he then left that job, and held down 2 more engineering jobs before he was diagnosed with a stroking condition and subsequent dementia. I got the distinct impression he thought he had more time, but rapidly declined.
If he knew he was short of time before his rapid decline he probably would have done things differently. Like not buying a house he would later have to sell to pay for aged care.
If he knew he was at risk of a workplace accident he probably wouldn't have worked as an after hours safety engineer at a major treatment plant, where if the worst had happened he could have endangered others.
At a personal level, I've been through this with my grandfather.
I want to know. My family wants to know. I want to prepare because there are things I want to do today that I know I won't be able to do in the future.
In many ways, it's just like many terminal cancer diagnoses. You're going to lose that person, but you have some time.
It's a weird disease and IMO not even really a disease it's a bunch of different causes of cognitive impairment under one umbrella but shouldn't be separated out much further to find actual causes and treatments.
(There's enough info in the supplemental link on this page to have an LLM do the Bayes math for you.)
Looks like my prior was not too bad :)
These patients are already seeing doctors. Would you rather your doctor to hide the diagnosis just because your disease isn't curable (for now)? It's not like we're testing the whole population in masse.
Even though it cannot be reversed or eradicated (yet, let's hope) detection can allow individuals to adopt interventions that help either adjust their lives to better cope with its progression or help mitigate some of the detrimental behavioral consequences. In addition, if you have family to care for it may be impetus to get certain things in order for them before later stages of the disease, etc. It's horrible and bleak, but I could certainly see why one might want to know.
In the lucky case, it can also relieve anxiety. Even though false negatives may still be possible, receiving a negative detection might give people who have anxiety about certain symptoms relief, since they can rule out (rightly or wrongly) a pretty severe disease.
Getting an accurate diagnosis is always important. Cognitive decline could be caused by other problems, some of which are more treatable than others.
If this test came back negative it would suggest extra testing to rule out other conditions like a brain tumor or hydrocephalus.
Your point at the end is essentially correct. There's a couple of reasons that come to my mind:
Early detection lets us test cures more quickly. You can see if the treatment is working without waiting 30 years for symptoms to develop or not. If prevention is all that works, we can verify lifestyle changes, again without having to wait 30 years for symptoms to develop.
Early detection means there's more of a chance of any future treatment succeeding and the patient returning to a normal life. Think of early detection of cancer or heart disease meaning you can be treated with less risky medication and procedures and minimise the damage being done.
Look up some of the more recent treatments - many of which will get better with time. That's why detecting Alzheimer's early is a big deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecanemab
That aside, some moderately effective drugs have recently been approved that can slow down the disease in its early stages. And even if you are no candidate for these: you can start organising the life around you while you still can. Like moving to an assisted living facility.
It is frankly shocking to think disease diagnosis would be a useless thing
https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/news/2025-11-18/promising-rese...
The test is optional. Feel free to skip it.
Tell 50 million people they’re likely to have Alzheimer’s then tell them where to donate towards a cure, or treatments to slow it by a decade.
But apparently your odds go above 30% if you live long enough, so if you could test for being in that cohort I think that result would be too common to actually be devastating.
Pharmaceutical companies have spent something like $50 billion on developing Alzheimer's drugs with, well, the most furtive of straw-grasping to show for it. It's probably the most expensive single disease target (especially as things like cancer are families of diseases)... the failure to have good results isn't for lack of money, and merely throwing more money at it is unlikely to actually make progress towards meaningful treatments.
I just feel the thinking is off, it's like we are trying to treat cuts by removing scabs and scar tissue. We really need deep investigation on the sources, which I feel in many cases are industrial chemicals and how some people's body / immune system respond to them.
One of the most compelling studies I saw was how distance from a Golf Course predicted neurodegenerative diseases, based on their use of certain pesticides.
Someone always says “merely throwing money at the problem…”
What time period was the money spent? The last 25 years?
The United States spends $1 trillion a year in debt interest. $50 billion is nothing
There's Lecanemab and Donanemab. The effects are modest however.