“…On the other hand, researchers are not necessarily capable of clinically evaluating images, and the imaging methods and performance of the equipment employed in studies might not be sufficient for clinical evaluation, even though it is adequate for the purpose of the study (Booth, Waldman, Wardlaw, Taylor, & Jackson, 2012; Cramer et al., 2011; Grossman & Bernat, 2004; Illes et al., 2002; Illes, Kirschen, et al., 2004; Mamourian, 2004; Wolf, Paradise, & Caga‐anan, 2008). Thus, the risks of offering information about IFs have been reported, such as the possibility of causing fear in participants, posing time, physical, and financial burden on participants for detailed examinations (Anonymous, 2005; Grossman & Bernat, 2004; Illes et al., 2006; Kumra, Ashtari, Anderson, Cervellione, & Kan, 2006; Warlow, 2011), possibility of false‐negative and false‐positive results (Illes et al., 2006; Kumra et al., 2006; Royal & Peterson, 2008), existence of a “therapeutic misconception” (Kirschen, Jaworska, & Illes, 2006; Meltzer, 2006; Miller, Mello, & Joffe, 2008; Parker, 2008; Shaw, Senior, Peel, Cooke, & Donnelly, 2008), and issues related to insurability (Apold & Downie, 2011; Check, 2005). Thus far, experts have reached a consensus that researchers are obliged to respond to IFs in some way (Wardlaw et al., 2015; Wolf, Lawrenz, et al., 2008) and proposed some models for handling IFs (Illes et al., 2008; Wolf, Lawrenz, et al., 2008; Cramer et al., 2011; NINDS (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), 2005; Shoemaker et al., 2016).…”