Leading by example: How the Webster team's systematic review quietly rebuked the field's preoccupation with biomarker "disclosure," and why it matters.

In this issue, Webster and colleagues report findings and provide direction following a systematic review and evidence synthesis designed to understand the decisional needs of research participants considering whether to receive biomarker or genetic risk information. The report serves as a foundation for a future of participant-centered approaches to the return of individual results in Alzheimer's disease research. This Ethics Response comments on the authors' terminology choices highlighting the notable absence of references to disclosure. The Response concludes that alternative terms like return or sharing of results offer less stigmatizing and more patient-centered approaches to communicating biomarker and genetic test results.