ReviewArquivos de neuro-psiquiatria2024
Alzheimer's disease: part 2 - the present.
Review in Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The past, present, and future of Alzheimer's disease-part 3: the future.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2026Review
- Antiamyloid therapies for Alzheimer's disease: an experts' dialogue on facts and controversies.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Based on my work as a clinical neurologist with more than 50 years of experience in caring for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), I focus, in this review article, on the disease's two fundamental aspects for the doctor: diagnosis and treatment. The 1984 diagnostic criteria had been stable for more than a quarter of a century when it was replaced in 2011. Since then, there have been many discoveries, especially of biomarkers that have a heavy impact on the diagnosis of AD. Recently, AD biomarkers have become available in plasma, which certainly will cause a major change in the diagnosis of biological AD, a term that still needs care and information to society before being used in clinical practice. Three monoclonal antibodies against β-amyloid peptide have also been recently approved, and two of these have shown a small but statistically significant effect on clinical outcome. These monoclonal antibodies have had a greater effect on the reduction of amyloid plaques in the brain assessed by positron emission tomography (PET), and on the concentration of biomarkers in the cerebrospinal fluid (β-amyloid peptide with 42 amino acids and hyperphosphorylated tau protein) than in the neuropsychological and functional assessments. Even this small clinical effect will be encouraging for the development of new research, particularly helped by the greater ease of diagnosis and monitoring of the evolution of AD pathophysiology with plasma biomarkers. Recently, new diagnostic criteria for AD were presented by the Alzheimer's Association, causing controversy about their use in clinical practice.
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.