Consensus neuropathological diagnosis of common dementia syndromes: testing and standardising the use of multiple diagnostic criteria
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the variation between neuropathologists in the diagnosis of common dementia syndromes when multiple published protocols are applied. Fourteen out of 18 Australian neuropathologists participated in diagnosing 20 cases (16 cases of dementia, 4 age-matched controls) using consensus diagnostic methods. Diagnostic criteria, clinical synopses and slides from multiple brain regions were sent to participants who were asked for case diagnoses. Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, accuracy and variability were determined using percentage agreement and kappa statistics. Using CERAD criteria, there was a high inter-rater agreement for cases with probable and definite Alzheimer's disease but low agreement for cases with possible Alzheimer's disease. Braak staging and the application of criteria for dementia with Lewy bodies also resulted in high inter-rater agreement. There was poor agreement for the diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia and for identifying small vessel disease. Participants rarely diagnosed more than one disease in any case. To improve efficiency when applying multiple diagnostic criteria, several simplifications were proposed and tested on 5 of the original 20 cases. Inter-rater reliability for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies significantly improved. Further development of simple and accurate methods to identify small vessel lesions and diagnose frontotemporal dementia is warranted.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CERAD and Braak scoring methods have been shown to have a reasonably high level of reproducibility between observers and among research centers.
“These scoring methods have been shown to have a reasonably high level of reproducibility between observers and among research centers (34-37).”
From Accuracy of the Clinical Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease at National Institute on Aging Alzheimer Disease Centers, 2005–2010 (2012) · cites this paper as [37]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 45 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Halliday, G., Ng, T., Rodriguez, M., Harding, A., Blumbergs, P., Evans, W., Fabian, V., Fryer, J., Gonzales, M., Harper, C., Kalnins, R., Masters, C., McLean, C., Milder, D., Pamphlett, R., Scott, G., Tannenberg, A., & Kril, J.
- Affiliations
- Neuroscience Research Australia (AU)
- Westmead Hospital (AU)
- South Australia Pathology (AU)
- Royal Perth Hospital (AU)
- Royal North Shore Hospital (AU)
- The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Austin Hospital (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Mater Misericordiae Hospital (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Halliday, G.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Acta Neuropathologica
- Published
- 2002-03-22
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 72-78
- ISSN
- 0001-6322 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0533
- OpenAlex
- W2050177082
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Acta Neuropathologica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ramaciotti Foundations
- Ian Potter Foundation
- National Health and Medical Research Council
- National Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia, cerebral small vessel disease, diagnostic criteria, interobserver agreement, Braak staging, consensus diagnosis, diagnostic standardization
- MeSH terms
- Alzheimer Disease, Decision Making, Humans, Pathology, Clinical, Registries, Dementia, Vascular, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Lewy Body Disease
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review