BACKGROUND: Criteria for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) were established in 1984. A broad consensus now exists that these criteria should be revised to incorporate state-of-the-art scientific knowledge. METHODS: The National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer's Association sponsored a series of advisory round table meetings in 2009 whose purpose was to establish a process for revising diagnostic and research criteria for AD. The recommendation from these advisory meetings was that three separate work groups should be formed with each assigned the task of formulating diagnostic criteria for one phase of the disease: the dementia phase; the symptomatic, pre-dementia phase; and the asymptomatic, preclinical phase of AD. RESULTS: Two notable differences from the AD criteria published in 1984 are incorporation of biomarkers of the underlying disease state and formalization of different stages of disease in the diagnostic criteria. There was a broad consensus within all three workgroups that much additional work is needed to validate the application of biomarkers for diagnostic purposes. In the revised NIA-Alzheimer's Association criteria, a semantic and conceptual distinction is made between AD pathophysiological processes and clinically observable syndromes that result, whereas this distinction was blurred in the 1984 criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The new criteria for AD are presented in three documents. The core clinical criteria of the recommendations regarding AD dementia and MCI due to AD are intended to guide diagnosis in the clinical setting. However, the recommendations of the preclinical AD workgroup are intended purely for research purposes.
BACKGROUND: Criteria for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) were established in 1984. A broad consensus now exists that these criteria should be revised to incorporate state-of-the-art scientific knowledge. METHODS: The National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer's Association sponsored a series of advisory round table meetings in 2009 whose purpose was to establish a process for revising diagnostic and research criteria for AD. The recommendation from these advisory meetings was that three separate work groups should be formed with each assigned the task of formulating diagnostic criteria for one phase of the disease: the dementia phase; the symptomatic, pre-dementia phase; and the asymptomatic, preclinical phase of AD. RESULTS: Two notable differences from the AD criteria published in 1984 are incorporation of biomarkers of the underlying disease state and formalization of different stages of disease in the diagnostic criteria. There was a broad consensus within all three workgroups that much additional work is needed to validate the application of biomarkers for diagnostic purposes. In the revised NIA-Alzheimer's Association criteria, a semantic and conceptual distinction is made between AD pathophysiological processes and clinically observable syndromes that result, whereas this distinction was blurred in the 1984 criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The new criteria for AD are presented in three documents. The core clinical criteria of the recommendations regarding AD dementia and MCI due to AD are intended to guide diagnosis in the clinical setting. However, the recommendations of the preclinical AD workgroup are intended purely for research purposes.
Authors: E C Mormino; J T Kluth; C M Madison; G D Rabinovici; S L Baker; B L Miller; R A Koeppe; C A Mathis; M W Weiner; W J Jagust Journal: Brain Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Hugo Vanderstichele; Malgorzata Knapik-Czajka; Christopher M Clark; Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Kaj Blennow; Holly Soares; Adam Simon; Piotr Lewczuk; Robert Dean; Eric Siemers; William Potter; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: D F Tang-Wai; N R Graff-Radford; B F Boeve; D W Dickson; J E Parisi; R Crook; R J Caselli; D S Knopman; R C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-10-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: George M Savva; Stephen B Wharton; Paul G Ince; Gillian Forster; Fiona E Matthews; Carol Brayne Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Ingelsson; H Fukumoto; K L Newell; J H Growdon; E T Hedley-Whyte; M P Frosch; M S Albert; B T Hyman; M C Irizarry Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-03-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; Stephen D Weigand; Heather J Wiste; Matthew L Senjem; David S Knopman; Maria M Shiung; Jeffrey L Gunter; Bradley F Boeve; Bradley J Kemp; Michael Weiner; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Brain Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Guy M McKhann; David S Knopman; Howard Chertkow; Bradley T Hyman; Clifford R Jack; Claudia H Kawas; William E Klunk; Walter J Koroshetz; Jennifer J Manly; Richard Mayeux; Richard C Mohs; John C Morris; Martin N Rossor; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Sandra Weintraub; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Reisa A Sperling; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; David A Bennett; Suzanne Craft; Anne M Fagan; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Clifford R Jack; Jeffrey Kaye; Thomas J Montine; Denise C Park; Eric M Reiman; Christopher C Rowe; Eric Siemers; Yaakov Stern; Kristine Yaffe; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Marcelle Morrison-Bogorad; Molly V Wagster; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Marilyn S Albert; Steven T DeKosky; Dennis Dickson; Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Nick C Fox; Anthony Gamst; David M Holtzman; William J Jagust; Ronald C Petersen; Peter J Snyder; Maria C Carrillo; Bill Thies; Creighton H Phelps Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Thomas Polak; Martin J Herrmann; Laura D Müller; Julia B M Zeller; Andrea Katzorke; Matthias Fischer; Fabian Spielmann; Erik Weinmann; Leif Hommers; Martin Lauer; Andreas J Fallgatter; Jürgen Deckert Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 3.575