4.5 Article

Clinical criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease: Still good after all these years

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 384-388

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181629971

关键词

NINCDS/ ADRDA criteria; Alzheimer disease; postmortem

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [5P30AG012300] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the impact of newer neuropathological techniques on the power of National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke - AD and Related Disorders Association criteria for Alzheimer disease ( AD) to detect AD at later postmortem study. Design: We examined clinical and postmortem diagnoses of persons evaluated postmortem with thioflavin-S staining for plaques and tangles and immunohistochemical staining techniques for alpha synuclein, uhiquitin, and tau protein. Setting: Alzheimer Disease Center. Participants: Clinically evaluated persons for whom tissue diagnosis was available. Results: Of 313 evaluees, 166 met criteria for probable AD. An additional 59 subjects had clinical diagnoses that included AD, e. g., possible AD, Lewy body variant of AD, AD and Parkinsonism, and mixed AD and vascular dementia. Of the 166 probable AD cases, 147 of 166 ( 88.6%) met pathologic criteria for AD. When all five AD groups were combined, 194 of 225 subjects ( 86.2%) met pathologic criteria for AD. There were five cases diagnosed pathologically as tangle-only dementia, which was considered a variant of AD. A pathologic diagnosis of Lewy body variant of AD was made in 56 ( 17.9%) of cases, including 44 of 313 ( 14.1%) cases diagnosed as probable or possible AD. Pure dementia with Lewy bodies was seen in 13 ( 4.2%). There were 9 ( 2.9%) cases of mixed AD and vascular dementia, and 37 ( 11.4%) cases of frontotemporal dementia. Conclusions: McKhann et al. criteria for probable and possible AD are valid for AD but do not exclude additional Lewy body pathology.

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