Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39045353›Full record

ArticleConsortium psychiatricum2022

The Evolution of Diagnostic Boundaries of Alzheimer's Disease and Novel Therapeutic Options: Эволюция диагностических границ болезни Альцгеймера и новые терапевтические возможности.

Svetlana Gavrilova

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Consortium psychiatricum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past three decades, the definition and diagnostic boundaries of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been repeatedly revised due to significant progress in understanding of the pathogenesis of neurodegeneration associated with Alzheimer's disease and in the development of high-tech diagnostic methods. The current approach to AD diagnostics relies on the detection of biomarkers that reflect two main neuropathological processes involved in the primary neurodegeneration that underlies AD: abnormal amyloidogenesis, and neuronal degeneration. The currently available diagnostic tools are limited to the detection of cerebrospinal biomarkers and/or assessment of the abnormal amyloid and tau protein burden in the brain via amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET) ligands. Practical implementation (mostly in the research field) of the biological model of AD diagnosis has led to a significant expansion of its diagnostic boundaries with the inclusion of predementia AD stages: asymptomatic and symptomatic, the latter is clinically corresponding to amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI-amnestic mild cognitive impairment). On the one hand, this approach significantly expands the possibilities to study and use preventive technologies aiming to avert or delay the progression of predementia cognitive impairment to dementia but, on the other, it is associated with a number of negative implications from both the clinical and ethical points of view. A significant limitation of purely biological diagnosis of AD based on biomarker levels is due to the low prognostic value of biomarkers, which can cause diagnostic confusion in certain circumstances. Moreover, since the future evolution of the asymptomatic stage is not yet clear and there are still no reliable ways to prevent the cognitive and behavioral symptoms associated with AD, disclosure of stressful information about this "terrifying" diagnosis to patients can cause irreversible damage by triggering depressive disorder, which is a risk factor of AD itself. The current knowledge about AD prognosis in amyloid-positive cognitively unimpaired patients is insufficient.The most adequate approach to early AD diagnostics appears to be the clinical and biological model, as recommended by the International Working Group (IWG 2021), which requires a combination of the clinical AD phenotype and the detection of biomarkers specific to this disease. The article discusses the potential directions for the development of biological diagnostic methods, including those based on the so-called peripheral (serum) biomarker technologies and promising directions for the development of biological methods of secondary AD prevention.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseasebiomarkersdiagnostic boundariessecondary preventiontreatment

Identifiers

PMID39045353
PMCPMC11262098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.