Cited by 972Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms

Neuropathologically defined subtypes of Alzheimer's disease with distinct clinical characteristics: a retrospective study

Open access
Murray, Melissa E, Graff-Radford, Neill R, Ross, Owen A, Petersen, Ronald C, Duara, Ranjan, Dickson, Dennis W·2011·The Lancet Neurology

Abstract

Background Neurofibrillary pathology has a stereotypical progression in Alzheimer's disease (AD) that is encapsulated in the Braak staging scheme; however, some AD cases are atypical and do not fit into this scheme. We aimed to compare clinical and neuropathological features between typical and atypical AD cases.Methods AD cases with a Braak neurofibrillary tangle stage of more than IV were identified from a brain bank database. By use of thioflavin-S fluorescence microscopy, we assessed the density and the distribution of neurofibrillary tangles in three cortical regions and two hippocampal sectors. These data were used to construct an algorithm to classify AD cases into typical, hippocampal sparing, or limbic predominant. Classified cases were then compared for clinical, demographic, pathological, and genetic characteristics. An independent cohort of AD cases was assessed to validate findings from the initial cohort.Findings 889 cases of AD, 398 men and 491 women with age at death of 37-103 years, were classified with the algorithm as hippocampal sparing (97 cases [11%]), typical (665 [75%]), or limbic predominant (127 [14%]). By comparison with typical AD, neurofibrillary tangle counts per 0.125 mm(2) in hippocampal sparing cases were higher in cortical areas (median 13, IQR 11-16) and lower in the hippocampus (7.5, 5.2-9.5), whereas counts in limbic-predominant cases were lower in cortical areas (4.3, 3.0-5.7) and higher in the hippocampus (27, 22-35). Hippocampal sparing cases had less hippocampal atrophy than did typical and limbic-predominant cases. Patients with hippocampal sparing AD were younger at death (mean 72 years [SD 10]) and a higher proportion of them were men (61 [63%]), whereas those with limbic-predominant AD were older (mean 86 years [SD 6]) and a higher proportion of them were women (87 [69%]). Microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) H1H1 genotype was more common in limbic-predominant AD (54 [70%]) than in hippocampal sparing AD (24 [46%]; p=0.011), but did not differ significantly between limbic-predominant and typical AD (204 [59%]; p=0.11). Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4 allele status differed between AD subtypes only when data were stratified by age at onset. Clinical presentation, age at onset, disease duration, and rate of cognitive decline differed between the AD subtypes. These findings were confirmed in a validation cohort of 113 patients with AD.Interpretation These data support the hypothesis that AD has distinct clinicopathological subtypes. Hippocampal sparing and limbic-predominant AD subtypes might account for about 25% of cases, and hence should be considered when designing clinical, genetic, biomarker, and treatment studies in patients with AD.Funding US National Institutes of Health via Mayo Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Mayo Clinic Study on Aging, Florida Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, and Einstein Aging Study; and State of Florida Alzheimer's Disease Initiative.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1474-4422(11)70156-9

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Clinical features lack specificity for a pathologic process, but rather indicate brain regions or systems affected by the disease process.

    “clinical features lack specificity for a pathologic process, but rather indicate brain regions or systems affected by the disease process [3, 4].”

    From The neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (2019) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) links focal clinical presentations in hippocampal-sparing Alzheimer’s disease to selective cortical vulnerability and advises considering Alzheimer’s disease in the differential diagnosis of focal cortical syndromes. This supports the point that symptoms can reflect affected regions, but the study does not establish the broader claim that clinical features generally lack specificity for a pathologic process. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Three major subtypes of AD can be classified by the relative density of hippocampal neurofibrillary tangles with respect to neocortical tangles.

    “Three major subtypes of AD can be classified by the relative density of hippocampal neurofibrillary tangles with respect to neocortical tangles [3].”

    From The neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (2019) · cites this paper as [3]

  • Genetic analyses of APOE suggest APOE4 is more closely linked to typical or limbic predominant than hippocampal sparing AD.

    “Genetic analyses of APOE suggest APOE4 is more closely linked to typical or limbic predominant than hippocampal sparing AD [3].”

    From The neuropathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (2019) · cites this paper as [3]

  • Nonamnestic clinical presentations-language, visuospatial, and executive disorders-may also be due to AD.

    “Nonamnestic clinical presentations, that is, language, visuospatial, and executive disorders, may also be due to AD [63–66].”
  • The molecular, anatomic, and clinical changes of AD may not progress in a uniform fashion.

    “Another challenge of CPC studies is that the molecular, anatomic, and clinical changes of AD may not progress in a uniform fashion (7, 12-15).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murray, M. E., Graff-Radford, N. R., Ross, O. A., Petersen, R. C., Duara, R., & Dickson, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Mount Sinai Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Dickson, Dennis W
Venue
The Lancet Neurology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
785-796
ISSN
1474-4422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075444764
Cited by
972
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 35
FWCI
29.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Mayo Clinic
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (P50‐AG16574, U01AG06786, P50 AG215711, P01AG03949, U01AG006786, P01AG003949, R21AG038736, P50AG025711, P01AG017216, P50AG016574)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P50NS072187)
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, neurofibrillary tangles, Braak staging, hippocampal sparing, hippocampal atrophy, tau pathology, clinical features, atypical Alzheimer's disease, sex differences, age at death, genetic risk factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Limbic System, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Neurofibrillary Tangles, tau Proteins, Apolipoprotein E4

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