4.5 Article

Neuropathologic Studies of the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA)

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 665-675

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2009-1179

关键词

alpha-synuclein; Alzheimer's disease; asymptomatic Alzheimer's disease; amyloid-beta; dementia; Parkinson's disease; stereology; successful aging; tau

资金

  1. Johns Hopkins University Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (National Institutes of Health) [AG05146]
  2. Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Translational Research
  3. National Institute of Aging
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P50AG005146, Z01AG000191, ZIAAG000015, ZIAAG000185] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA) was established in 1958 and is one the oldest prospective studies of aging in the USA and the world. The BLSA is supported by the National Institute of Aging (NIA) and its mission is to learn what happens to people as they get old and how to sort out changes due to aging from those due to disease or other causes. In 1986, an autopsy program combined with comprehensive neurologic and cognitive evaluations was established in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins University Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC). Since then, 211 subjects have undergone autopsy. Here we review the key clinical neuropathological correlations from this autopsy series. The focus is on the morphological and biochemical changes that occur in normal aging, and the early neuropathological changes of neurodegenerative diseases, especially Alzheimer's disease (AD). We highlight the combined clinical, pathologic, morphometric, and biochemical evidence of asymptomatic AD, a state characterized by normal clinical evaluations in subjects with abundant AD pathology. We conclude that in some individuals, successful cognitive aging results from compensatory mechanisms that occur at the neuronal level (i.e., neuronal hypertrophy and synaptic plasticity) whereas a failure of compensation may culminate in disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据