ArticleCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2016
The New Criteria for Alzheimer's Disease - Implications for Geriatricians.
Article in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alzheimer's Disease Biomarker Analysis Using Targeted Mass Spectrometry.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Review
- Geriatricians' Perspectives on the Multiple Dimensions of Utility of Genetic Testing for Alzheimer's Disease: A Qualitative Study.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022Article
- Practical recommendations for timely, accurate diagnosis of symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (MCI and dementia) in primary care: a review and synthesis.Journal of internal medicine · 2021Review
- Open peer review commentary on building clinically relevant outcomes across the Alzheimer's disease spectrum.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2021Article
- The June Issue of the CGJ.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two new sets of criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are now in play, including one set released in 2014, and a proposal for a "new lexicon" for how to describe the disease spectrum. A 2012 Canadian consensus conference said that to then, none of the new criteria or terminology would change primary care practice; that is still likely to be so. For dementia consultants, however, the new criteria pose challenges and offer opportunities. In general, the new criteria see an expanded role for bio-markers. Even so, the evidence base for this remains incomplete. Our understanding of the neuropathological criteria for dementia changed as the evidence base included more community cases. This is likely to inform the experience with biomarkers. At present, each of the criteria specifies an exclusive research role. Still, wider uptake is likely, especially in the United States. Geriatricians should be aware of the fundamental change in the terminology now being employed: AD diagnosis no longer obliges a diagnosis of dementia. Until more data emerge-something to which geriatricians can contribute-there is reason to be cautious in the adoption of the new criteria, as they are likely to be least applicable to older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.