Cited by 289Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsNeuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration Mechanisms

Application of the National Institute on Aging (NIA)-Reagan Institute Criteria for the Neuropathological Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease

Newell, Kathy L., Hyman, Bradley T., Growdon, John H., Hedley-Whyte, E Tessa·1999·Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology

Abstract

The Khachaturian criteria and the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer Disease (CERAD) criteria for the neuropathological assessment of Alzheimer disease (AD) emphasize senile or neuritic plaques, age, and clinical history. A new scheme stressing topographic staging of neurofibrillary changes in addition to neuritic plaques has been proposed by the National Institute on Aging (NIA)-Reagan Institute Consensus Conference. This scheme assigns cases to high, intermediate, or low likelihood categories that the dementia is due to AD. We applied this method to 84 brains from subjects with clinical and neuropathological diagnoses of AD (n = 33), non-AD dementing illnesses (n = 34), including dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), and no neurological disease (n = 17). We also used Khachaturian and CERAD criteria. Neurofibrillary tangle and neuropil thread densities were assessed on 6-micrometer-thick modified Bielschowsky-stained paraffin sections from entorhinal-perirhinal cortex, CA1 of hippocampus, and neocortex including inferior temporal, visual association, and primary visual cortices. Each case was assigned a Braak and Braak stage. Using the NIA-Reagan criteria, we found excellent agreement between clinical history of AD dementia and brains assigned to the high likelihood category that dementia was due to AD. Among brains diagnosed neuropathologically with other degenerative diseases, NIA-Reagan criteria were more conservative than…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005072-199911000-00004

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newell, K. L., Hyman, B. T., Growdon, J. H., & Hedley-Whyte, E. T.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Hyman, Bradley T.
Venue
Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology
Published
1999-11
Volume
58
Issue
11
Pages
1147-1155
ISSN
0022-3069 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038419623
Cited by
289
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 21
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P50AG005134, AG 05134)
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, neuropathological diagnosis, neurofibrillary tangles, Braak staging, neuropil threads, dementia with Lewy bodies, progressive supranuclear palsy, differential diagnosis of dementia, hippocampal CA1, neurodegenerative diseases
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Brain, Cognition Disorders, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Hippocampus, Humans, Male, Reference Standards, Registries, Supranuclear Palsy, Progressive, Temporal Lobe, Visual Cortex, Lewy Bodies, Neurofibrillary Tangles, Entorhinal Cortex, Neuropil, Plaque, Amyloid

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