4.7 Article

Preclinical Alzheimer's disease: Definition, natural history, and diagnostic criteria

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 292-323

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.02.002

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Preclinical; Asymptomatic; Diagnostic criteria; Biomarkers; Pathophysiology; Genetics; CSF biomarkers; Blood biomarkers; MRI; Amyloid PET; Tau PET

资金

  1. AXA Research Fund
  2. Fondation Universite Pierre et Marie Curie
  3. Fondation pour la Recherche sur Alzheimer, Paris, France
  4. program Investissements d'avenir [ANR-10-IAIHU-06]
  5. European Medical Information Framework (EMIF)
  6. National Institute on Aging
  7. French International Foundation for Research in Alzheimer's disease (IFRAD)
  8. Alzheimer's Association
  9. ESRC [ES/L001810/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Alzheimers Research UK [ARUK-SRF2013-8] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L001810/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the past decade, a conceptual shift occurred in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) considering the disease as a continuum. Thanks to evolving biomarker research and substantial discoveries, it is now possible to identify the disease even at the preclinical stage before the occurrence of the first clinical symptoms. This preclinical stage of AD has become a major research focus as the field postulates that early intervention may offer the best chance of therapeutic success. To date, very little evidence is established on this silent stage of the disease. A clarification is needed about the definitions and lexicon, the limits, the natural history, the markers of progression, and the ethical consequence of detecting the disease at this asymptomatic stage. This article is aimed at addressing all the different issues by providing for each of them an updated review of the literature and evidence, with practical recommendations. (C) 2016 The Alzheimer's Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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