时间标签：数据日期 2026-11-05 · 生成时间 2026-11-05 05:30（Asia/Shanghai）｜ 检索窗口 PubMed edat 2026/11/02 – 2026/11/06 ｜ 情报发生日期 2026-11-05
研究问题
Although unprecedented at this stage of AD, clinical benefits are objectively limited, triggering an intense debate on their clinical meaningfulness considering the putative disease‐modifying nature of the AAT [12, 13].；It can be broadly divided into four steps: (1) setting a goal (e.g., achieving better control over AD); (2) generating options (e.g., whether to undergo treatment); (3) evaluating the value of each option, defined as expected gains minus expected costs; this evaluation considers multiple factors, such as the time required to achieve the outcome and the probabilities of potential gains or side effects; (4) selecting the best option [19].；Confirmation bias leads individuals to favour options consistent with their prior beliefs rather than objectively evaluating all alternatives [24], while overconfidence, common among frequent decision‐makers such as doctors, results in excessive trust in one's knowledge or skills [25].These examples highlight that many decisions are often non‐rational.
方法
These decisions arise when patients remain legally capable of providing informed consent but may experience cognitive vulnerabilities affecting their ability to engage in complex decisions.；We propose a relational framework involving assessment of patients' cognitive vulnerabilities, values, preferences, and informational needs; tailored information; and involvement of a patient‐designated care partner to support information exchange, deliberation, and expression of preferences.；As the disease advances, its effects become profound enough that patients increasingly rely on others, especially for daily activities and decision‐making [4].
核心结论
Therefore, a general rule in European countries is that adults exercise their rights freely and independently until it is demonstrated that they can no longer do so.；Thus, if the assessment concluded that the patient lacks decision‐making capacity and has no legally authorised representative, it would be ethically and legally questionable to transfer decision‐making authority to another person.Nevertheless, as noted above, subtle cognitive impairment related to early AD and the complexity of AAT may undermine decisional autonomy.
局限
However, safety risks and uncertainties regarding long‐term effects make treatment decisions complex.；However, adverse effects, the practical burden of treatment and monitoring, and uncertainties inherent in innovative therapies also constrain them [6].；These divergences in assessment do not, however, render AATs irrelevant, nor do they eliminate the question of how they might be prescribed in Europe should they enter the market in the years ahead.
对本项目的价值
中等价值：属「脑老化与神经退行」方向；脑老化 / 神经退行 / 认知栏目可用作本项目文献库与综述素材。 ｜ 价值分 2.6/5（★★★☆☆）
全文来源
Europe PMC fullTextXML（正文 60,401 字符，题名指纹 0.91，已过 DOI 关联 + 题名指纹 + 正文长度归属校验）
原文题录
- 中文题名：阿尔茨海默病淀粉样蛋白免疫治疗中共同决策的挑战与应对
- 英文标题：Navigating the Challenges of Shared Decision-Making in Amyloid Immunotherapy for Alzheimer's Disease.
- 期刊与标识：European journal of neurology · PMID 42969459 · DOI 10.1111/ene.70800 · PMC PMC13725938