text_1: Stanford team finds blood test to help identify Alzheimer’s disease
text_2: "This was a story about a method described in a recently published letter to the journal Nature Medicine for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. While providing some details of the results outlined in the letter, the story failed to provide context to help readers understand the risks and benefits that might be associated with the kind of test described. The story failed to mention that if the test were to be demonstrated to have utility for early identification of Alzheimer’s disease, its initial greatest benefit would probably come from identifying individuals who might then participate in clinical trials to develop treatments for improved management of the condition. The story did a good job in:   providing actual numbers (e.g., test was positive for Alzheimer’s disease in 38 out of 42 patients….) and % accuracy rate  using a lot of cautionary phrases (e.g., ""preliminary studies"") and has specific caution that will be at least 2 years before available (after further testing) and ""…all technologies a long way from being available in clinics"". However, the story doesn’t give much discussion about the specific limitations of this study. For example, this case-control type of patient selection almost always overestimates test accuracy. So it’s likely to perform worse in real world populations. The story also didn’t comment on the fact that the publication in the journal Nature Medicine was actually a letter – which is curious and almost demands comment. Although methods are published, why was it not published as an original article about original research? As a letter, was it peer-reviewed? The same as original articles? When a news story discusses the potential of a new test for Alzheimer’s disease – a topic of great public interest – questioning the quality of the evidence is a key issue."