P1-371: New research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease applied in a memory clinic population

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. T327-T328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Femke H. Bouwman ◽  
Nicolaas A. Verwey ◽  
Martin Klein ◽  
Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg ◽  
Astrid Kok ◽  
...  
2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.H. Bouwman ◽  
N.A. Verwey ◽  
M. Klein ◽  
A. Kok ◽  
M.A. Blankenstein ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 602-608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Baillon ◽  
Saquib Muhommad ◽  
Mangesh Marudkar ◽  
Srinivas Suribhatla ◽  
Michael Dennis ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (S5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Sophia Gleerup ◽  
Camilla Steen Jensen ◽  
Peter Høgh ◽  
Steen Gregers Hasselbalch ◽  
Anja Hviid Simonsen

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Beinhoff ◽  
H. Tumani ◽  
M. W. Riepe

Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be diagnosed according to new research criteria proposed recently (Dubois et al., 2007). Diagnosis is made on grounds of episodic memory deficits and one pathological biomarker: cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or structural/functional imaging. Goal was to investigate the dependence of episodic memory function on material (verbal, visuospatial), gender and premorbid intellectual ability (IQ). The new research criteria of AD were applied retrospectively using data of 68 patients (Mini-Mental-Status Examination, MMSE 22) from a university memory clinic. Women with lower IQ performed worse on visuospatial episodic memory than women with higher IQ and men with the same IQ. Thus, women with lower IQ appear to be particularly vulnerable tovisuospatialepisodic memory deficits despite similar CSF tau values indicating a similar activity of the neurodegenerative process. Gender, premorbid IQ, and visuospatial material need to be considered in the assessment of episodic memory breakdown applying the newly proposed research criteria for the diagnosis of AD.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 3147-3155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jules J. Claus ◽  
Salka S. Staekenborg ◽  
Dana C. Holl ◽  
Jelmen J. Roorda ◽  
Jacqueline Schuur ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 1140-1147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srinivas Suribhatla ◽  
Sarah Baillon ◽  
Michael Dennis ◽  
Mangesh Marudkar ◽  
Saquib Muhammad ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 955-966
Author(s):  
Mattias Göthlin ◽  
Marie Eckerström ◽  
Magnus Lindwall ◽  
Sindre Rolstad ◽  
Carl Eckerström ◽  
...  

EBioMedicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 103361
Author(s):  
Helena Sophia Gleerup ◽  
Camilla Steen Jensen ◽  
Peter Høgh ◽  
Steen Gregers Hasselbalch ◽  
Anja Hviid Simonsen

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Yi-Wen Bao ◽  
Anson C.M. Chau ◽  
Patrick Ka-Chun Chiu ◽  
Yat Fung Shea ◽  
Joseph S.K. Kwan ◽  
...  

Background: With the more widespread use of 18F-radioligand-based amyloid-β (Aβ) PET-CT imaging, we evaluated Aβ binding and the utility of neocortical 18F-Flutemetamol standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) as a biomarker. Objective: 18F-Flutemetamol SUVR was used to differentiate 1) mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and 2) MCI from other non-AD dementias (OD). Methods: 109 patients consecutively recruited from a University memory clinic underwent clinical evaluation, neuropsychological test, MRI and 18F-Flutemetamol PET-CT. The diagnosis was made by consensus of a panel consisting of 1 neuroradiologist and 2 geriatricians. The final cohort included 13 subjective cognitive decline (SCD), 22 AD, 39 MCI, and 35 OD. Quantitative analysis of 16 region-of-interests made by Cortex ID software (GE Healthcare). Results: The global mean 18F-Flutemetamol SUVR in SCD, MCI, AD, and OD were 0.50 (SD-0.08), 0.53 (SD-0.16), 0.76 (SD-0.10), and 0.56 (SD-0.16), respectively, with SUVR in SCD and MCI and OD being significantly lower than AD. Aβ binding in SCD, MCI, and OD was heterogeneous, being 23%, 38.5%, and 42.9% respectively, as compared to 100% amyloid positivity in AD. Using global SUVR, ROC analysis showed AUC of 0.868 and 0.588 in differentiating MCI from AD and MCI from OD respectively. Conclusion: 18F-Flutemetamol SUVR differentiated MCI from AD with high efficacy (high negative predictive value), but much lower efficacy from OD. The major benefit of the test was to differentiate cognitively impaired patients (either SCD, MCI, or OD) without AD-related-amyloid-pathology from AD in the clinical setting, which was under-emphasized in the current guidelines proposed by Amyloid Imaging Task Force.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document