Criteria for the neuropathological diagnosis of dementing disorders: routes out of the swamp?
Abstract
There are several consensus criteria for both the clinical and neuropathological diagnosis of different types of dementias. The clinical diagnostic accuracy using revised research criteria and newly developed biomarkers (MRI, PET, CSF analysis, genetic markers) ranges from 65 to 96% (for Alzheimer disease) with a specificity of diagnostic criteria versus other dementias of 23-88%. Neuropathological assessment of dementing disorders using immunohistochemistry, molecular biologic and genetic methods can achieve a diagnosis/classification, based on the homogeneous definitions, harmonized inter-laboratory methods and standards for the assessment of nervous system lesions, in about 99%, without, however, being able to clarify the causes/etiology of most of these disorders. Further prospective and concerted clinicopathological studies using revised methodological and validated protocols and uniform techniques are required to establish the nature, distribution pattern and grades of lesions and; thus, to overcome the limitations of the current diagnostic framework. By data fusion this my allow their more uniform application and correlation with the clinical data in order to approach a diagnostic "gold standard", and to create generally accepted criteria for differentiating cognitive disorders from healthy brain aging. The detection of disease-specific pathologies will be indispensable to determinate the efficacy of new therapy options.
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?
CPC studies are complicated by the high prevalence and high morbidity of concurrent diseases.
“Studies on CPC are additionally complicated by the high prevalence and high morbidity of concurrent diseases (16, 17) (discussed in more detail below).”
From Correlation of Alzheimer Disease Neuropathologic Changes With Cognitive Status: A Review of the Literature (2012) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 262 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Jellinger, K. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Jellinger, Kurt A.
- ORCID
- Jellinger, Kurt A.
- Venue
- Acta Neuropathologica
- Published
- 2008-12-04
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-110
- ISSN
- 0001-6322 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0533
- OpenAlex
- W2022336636
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 262
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Acta Neuropathologica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
- National Institute on Aging
- 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
- dementia, neuropathological diagnosis, diagnostic criteria, Alzheimer's disease, clinicopathological correlation, healthy brain aging, biomarkers, data fusion, diagnostic gold standard
- MeSH terms
- Alzheimer Disease, Dementia, Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological, DNA-Binding Proteins, Humans, Lysosomes, Peptides, Prions, tau Proteins, Trinucleotide Repeats, alpha-Synuclein
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