Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39353147›Full record

ArticleNeurology2024

Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease.

Jemma Hazan, Kathy Y Liu, Harry Costello, Jeremy D Isaacs, Madhav Thambisetty, Robert Howard

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Isolated spastic dysarthria as an initial presentation of Alzheimer's disease.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jemma HazanFrom the University College London (J.H., K.Y.L., H.C., R.H.); Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute (J.D.I.), St George's, University of London, United Kingdom; and Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Section (M.T.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience (M.T.), National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-7223-4768
Kathy Y LiuFrom the University College London (J.H., K.Y.L., H.C., R.H.); Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute (J.D.I.), St George's, University of London, United Kingdom; and Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Section (M.T.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience (M.T.), National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-7482-2758
Harry CostelloFrom the University College London (J.H., K.Y.L., H.C., R.H.); Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute (J.D.I.), St George's, University of London, United Kingdom; and Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Section (M.T.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience (M.T.), National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD.
Jeremy D IsaacsFrom the University College London (J.H., K.Y.L., H.C., R.H.); Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute (J.D.I.), St George's, University of London, United Kingdom; and Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Section (M.T.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience (M.T.), National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD.
Madhav ThambisettyFrom the University College London (J.H., K.Y.L., H.C., R.H.); Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute (J.D.I.), St George's, University of London, United Kingdom; and Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Section (M.T.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience (M.T.), National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD.
Robert HowardFrom the University College London (J.H., K.Y.L., H.C., R.H.); Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute (J.D.I.), St George's, University of London, United Kingdom; and Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Section (M.T.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience (M.T.), National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD.ORCID 0000-0002-3071-2338

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been suggested that the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer disease (AD) is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a shift toward a biomarker-based approach, as proposed by the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of Alzheimer's Disease. These criteria advocate for diagnosing AD solely on biomarkers, without requiring clinical symptoms. This article explores the drivers behind this transition, primarily influenced by the Food and Drug Administration's approval of amyloid-lowering treatments. We evaluate the proposed criteria, which allow for an AD diagnosis based on amyloid "A" or phosphorylated tau "T1" positivity through surrogate amyloid PET imaging, CSF, or plasma biomarkers, and consider the arguments for and against their use. The merits of the new criteria include a clearer definition of AD, which is currently used interchangeably to refer to both the presence of neuropathology and the clinical syndrome. We argue that a purely biological definition risks a category error and emphasize the need for longitudinal data to establish the lifetime risk of dementia in amyloid-positive and tau-positive individuals. We also caution against limiting the scope of biomarker-based AD diagnosis to amyloid and tau alone. In conclusion, we recommend that the criteria remain within the research domain for the present while advocating for the considered adoption of plasma biomarkers in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseBiomarkerstau ProteinsAmyloid beta-PeptidesHumansPositron-Emission TomographyAmyloid beta-PeptidesBiomarkerstau Proteins

Identifiers

PMID39353147
PMCPMC11449396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.