Multisite assessment of NIA‐AA guidelines for the neuropathologic evaluation of Alzheimer's disease
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Neuropathologic assessment is the current “gold standard” for evaluating the Alzheimer's disease (AD), but there is no consensus on the methods used. Methods: Fifteen unstained slides (8 brain regions) from each of the 14 cases were prepared and distributed to 10 different National Institute on Aging AD Centers for application of usual staining and evaluation following recently revised guidelines for AD neuropathologic change. Results: Current practice used in the AD Centers Program achieved robustly excellent agreement for the severity score for AD neuropathologic change (average weighted κ = .88, 95% confidence interval: 0.77–0.95) and good‐to‐excellent agreement for the three supporting scores. Some improvement was observed with consensus evaluation but not with central staining of slides. Evaluation of glass slides and digitally prepared whole‐slide images was comparable. Discussion: AD neuropathologic evaluation as performed across AD Centers yields data that have high agreement with potential modifications for modest improvements.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The study had the strengths of using data on a large group of individuals from multiple institutions across the United States, all of which use standardized techniques and reporting methods for both clinical and autopsy data.
“Despite these limitations, the study had the strengths of using data on a large group of individuals from multiple institutions across the United States, all of which use standardized techniques and reporting methods for both clinical and autopsy data (26).”
From Concordance of Clinical Alzheimer Diagnosis and Neuropathological Features at Autopsy (2020) · cites this paper as [26]
The Methods describe a collaboration among ten AD Centers, and the Discussion reports high agreement in neuropathologic data across centers. But this paper examined fourteen cases, not a large group of individuals. Its Introduction says there was no consensus on staining methods, and it does not establish standardized clinical-data techniques or reporting across the institutions. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 113
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [8]Efron B The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics 1987
- Authors
- Montine, T. J., Monsell, S. E., Beach, T. G., Bigio, E. H., Bu, Y., Cairns, N. J., Frosch, M., Henriksen, J., Kofler, J., Kukull, W. A., Lee, E. B., Nelson, P. T., Schantz, A. M., Schneider, J. A., Sonnen, J. A., Trojanowski, J. Q., Vinters, H. V., Zhou, X., & Hyman, B. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Banner Sun Health Research Institute (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of Kentucky (US)
- Rush University Medical Center (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Montine, Thomas J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Alzheimer's & Dementia
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-08-29
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 164-169
- ISSN
- 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5279
- PMC
- PMC4562409
- OpenAlex
- W2192229571
- Cited by
- 113
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 7.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging
- National Institutes of Health
- 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 › Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's disease
- MeSH terms
- Neuropathology, Alzheimer Disease, Brain, Humans, United States, Voluntary Health Agencies, Practice Guidelines as Topic, National Institute on Aging (U.S.)
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
