[swores]

Is it not still the case that they do correlate, and therefore the article talking about them as biomarkers is not making the mistake you think it is (as if it was talking about them as the thing to get rid of to prevent Alzheimer's)? Because "lead to" is not the same as "causes".

Or has latest research shown that even a non-causal link should be dismissed?

[dimal]

Ok “lead to” might not be exactly equivalent to “causes”, but it’s not even accurate because tau doesn’t ALWAYS lead to Alzheimer’s. The correlation is not strong. People have tau and no Alzheimer’s and other people have Alzheimer’s symptoms and no tau. So what good does it do you to test for tau? It’s a higher probability of Alzheimer’s, but not nearly definitive. I suspect that if this test is productized, this nuance will be lost on many doctors.

Seems like a good test to give someone so you can scare them into taking a drug that also has very little evidence of effectiveness.

[kadoban]

"Lead to" is a synonym for "causes".

[swores]

It can be used that way, but not always. In fact, traditionally your way is the less common usage.

A path of breadcrumbs leads to the gingerbread house, despite the house not existing because of the path (or a road leading to a house, to get away from witches).

Unless you mean that in medical research it's universally agreed to only use it in that way? I'm sceptical that's the case but could be convinced...

(Either way, "lead to" obviously isn't at all clear enough if they did intend to mean "points towards, without causation".)

[kadoban]

"Lead to" physically, in terms of locations, means that, but I have never heard it mean "preceeds" and not "causes" in terms of events.

Yeah, I think they worded it incorrectly.