6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Understanding the Amyloid Hypothesis in Alzheimer’s Disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references191

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

          The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia. Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease

            In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes

              Eighty-three brains obtained at autopsy from nondemented and demented individuals were examined for extracellular amyloid deposits and intraneuronal neurofibrillary changes. The distribution pattern and packing density of amyloid deposits turned out to be of limited significance for differentiation of neuropathological stages. Neurofibrillary changes occurred in the form of neuritic plaques, neurofibrillary tangles and neuropil threads. The distribution of neuritic plaques varied widely not only within architectonic units but also from one individual to another. Neurofibrillary tangles and neuropil threads, in contrast, exhibited a characteristic distribution pattern permitting the differentiation of six stages. The first two stages were characterized by an either mild or severe alteration of the transentorhinal layer Pre-alpha (transentorhinal stages I-II). The two forms of limbic stages (stages III-IV) were marked by a conspicuous affection of layer Pre-alpha in both transentorhinal region and proper entorhinal cortex. In addition, there was mild involvement of the first Ammon's horn sector. The hallmark of the two isocortical stages (stages V-VI) was the destruction of virtually all isocortical association areas. The investigation showed that recognition of the six stages required qualitative evaluation of only a few key preparations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
                JAD
                IOS Press
                13872877
                18758908
                March 29 2019
                March 29 2019
                : 68
                : 2
                : 493-510
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Laboratory, Complex Structure of Geriatrics, Fondazione IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy
                Article
                10.3233/JAD-180802
                30883346
                deb5d077-2896-4859-b5b8-c9e9ef3a0777
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article