4.6 Review

Criteria for the neuropathological diagnosis of dementing disorders: routes out of the swamp?

Journal

ACTA NEUROPATHOLOGICA
Volume 117, Issue 2, Pages 101-110

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00401-008-0466-z

Keywords

Dementia; Alzheimer disease; Proteinopathies; Neuropathological diagnosis; Clinical relevance; Coexistent pathologies; Dementia in oldest-olds

Funding

  1. Society for the Support of Research in Experimental Neurology, Vienna, Austria

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are several consensus criteria for both the clinical and neuropathological diagnosis of different types of dementias. The clinical diagnostic accuracy using revised research criteria and newly developed biomarkers (MRI, PET, CSF analysis, genetic markers) ranges from 65 to 96% (for Alzheimer disease) with a specificity of diagnostic criteria versus other dementias of 23-88%. Neuropathological assessment of dementing disorders using immunohistochemistry, molecular biologic and genetic methods can achieve a diagnosis/classification, based on the homogeneous definitions, harmonized inter-laboratory methods and standards for the assessment of nervous system lesions, in about 99%, without, however, being able to clarify the causes/etiology of most of these disorders. Further prospective and concerted clinicopathological studies using revised methodological and validated protocols and uniform techniques are required to establish the nature, distribution pattern and grades of lesions and; thus, to overcome the limitations of the current diagnostic framework. By data fusion this my allow their more uniform application and correlation with the clinical data in order to approach a diagnostic gold standard, and to create generally accepted criteria for differentiating cognitive disorders from healthy brain aging. The detection of disease-specific pathologies will be indispensable to determinate the efficacy of new therapy options.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available