scholarly journals A Systematic Review Discussing Biomarkers for Early or Pre-Alzheimer’s Disease for Clinical Diagnosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ishaan Ishaan Bharadwaj ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Neurodegenerative Disease ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Working Group ◽  
International Working Group ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Over Time

Alzheimer’s is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that usually starts slowly and gradually worsens over time. It constitutes for over 65% of dementia cases and currently has no cure. This paper reviews the biomarkers for Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and evaluates these biomarkers based on various pathologies they are associated with, using the International Working Group (IWG) criteria, sensitivity, specificity etc. This paper summarizes the existing biomarkers, critically compares them and highlights which biomarkers are most effective for clinical diagnosis. It also discusses some of the drawbacks associated with using some biomarkers, either alone or in combination with others

scholarly journals Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: recommendations of the International Working Group

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Dubois ◽  
Nicolas Villain ◽  
Giovanni B Frisoni ◽  
Gil D Rabinovici ◽  
Marwan Sabbagh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Working Group ◽  
International Working Group

scholarly journals Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations of the International Working Group (IWG)

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (S5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Villain ◽  
Bruno Dubois ◽  
Giovanni B. Frisoni ◽  
Gil D. Rabinovici ◽  
Marwan Noel Sabbagh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Working Group ◽  
International Working Group

scholarly journals Recommendations of the International Working Group for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (S5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Dubois ◽  
Nicolas Villain ◽  
Giovanni Frisoni ◽  
Gil D. Rabinovici ◽  
Marwan Noel Sabbagh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Working Group ◽  
International Working Group

Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (4) ◽  
pp. 358-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Rizzo ◽  
Simona Arcuti ◽  
Massimiliano Copetti ◽  
Maria Alessandria ◽  
Rodolfo Savica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Dementia With Lewy Bodies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lewy Bodies ◽  
Diagnosis Of Dementia ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Late Stages ◽  
Over Time

BackgroundThe diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is based on diagnostic clinical criteria, which were updated over the years.ObjectiveTo evaluate, through a systematic review, accuracy of the diagnostic criteria, testing a possible improvement over time.MethodsWe searched on MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases for studies reporting diagnostic parameters regarding the clinical diagnosis of DLB until October 2016. We performed meta-analysis, using a Bayesian approach, on those using pathological examination as gold standard, subclassified based on the different diagnostic criteria used.ResultsWe selected 22 studies on 1585 patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 60.2%, 93.8%, 79.7%, respectively, for criteria antecedents to McKeith 1996. For McKeith 1996-possible, pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 65.6%, 80.6%, 77.9% in early stages and 72.3%, 64.3%, 66% in late stages, respectively. For McKeith 1996-probable, pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 19.4%, 95.1%, 77.7% in early stages and 48.6%, 88%, 79.2% in late stages, respectively. McKeith criteria 2005 were evaluated only in late stages: pooled sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 91.3%, 66.7% and 81.6%, respectively, for possible diagnosis (only one study) and 88.3%, 80.8%, 90.7% for probable diagnosis, decreasing to 85.6%, 77.1% and 81.7% if only considering clinical settings focused on dementia diagnosis and care.Conclusions and relevanceDiagnostic criteria have become more sensitive and less specific over time, without substantial change in the accuracy. Based on current data, about 20% of DLB diagnosis are incorrect. Future studies are needed to evaluate if the recently released revised consensus criteria will improve the diagnostic accuracy of DLB.

scholarly journals Activities and Kinetic Properties of Lumbar Cerebrospinal Fluid Cholinesterases in Relation to Clinical Diagnosis, Severity, and Progression of Alzheimer's Disease

1989 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 406-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Jacob Huff ◽  
Clara T. Reiter ◽  
Jack Protetch
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Ache Activity ◽  
Kinetic Properties ◽  
Bche Activity ◽  
Lumbar Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Severity Of Dementia ◽  
Over Time

ABSTRACT:Acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) activities of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) have been measured in seventeen patients with a clinical diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease (Prob AD), possible Alzheimer's disease (Poss AD), or dementia of non-Alzheimer aetiology (Non-AD). The three diagnostic groups did not differ with regard to the Km or saturation kinetic properties of AChE and BChE. The CSF AChE activity was significantly higher in Prob AD than in Non-AD patients. The groups did not differ significantly in BChE activity. The ratio of AChE to BChE activity was significantly higher in both the Prob AD and Poss AD groups than in the Non-AD group, and the ranges of values in the Prob AD and Non-AD groups did not overlap. Among patients in the Prob AD group, severity of dementia was correlated with both AChE activity and the AChE/BChE ratio, and progression of dementia over time was also correlated with AChE/BChE.The AChE/BChE ratio correlated more strongly than AChE with severity and progression of dementia in Prob AD patients, and also better distinguished them from Non-AD patients, suggesting that AChE/BChE may be the more useful marker for diagnosis of AD. It is not clear from the results whether AChE/BChE is useful for diagnosis of the complex dementia cases in the Poss AD group.

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW & META-ANALYSIS OF F-18-LABELLED AMYLOID IMAGING IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (11) ◽  
pp. e4.142-e4
Author(s):  
Jing Ming Yeo ◽  
Briony Waddell ◽  
Zubair Khan ◽  
Suvankar Pal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Odds Ratio ◽  
Amyloid Imaging ◽  
Pittsburgh Compound B ◽  
Analysis Methodology ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

IntroductionThere has been recent interest in the use of fluorine-18-labelled (18F) tracers in amyloid imaging as they have longer half-lives compared to 11C-labelled Pittsburgh compound-B (11C-PIB). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the sensitivity and specificity of 18F tracers florbetapir, florbetaben and flutemetamol in diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD).MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant studies published from January 1980 to March 2014. We pooled the studies comparing imaging findings in AD and normal controls (NC) in a meta-analysis, calculating the pooled weighted sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) using DerSimonian-Laird random effects model.ResultsA total of nineteen studies investigating 682 patients with AD, met the inclusion criteria; florbetapir (n=10), florbetaben (n=6), flutemetamol (n=3). Our meta-analysis for florbetapir revealed a pooled weighted sensitivity of 89.6%, specificity of 87.2% and diagnostic OR of 91.7 in differentiating AD from NC; and for florbetaben a pooled weighted sensitivity of 89.3%, specificity of 87.6% and diagnostic OR of 69.9.ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated favourable sensitivity and specificity for 18F tracers in diagnosing AD. Further and larger prospective studies are required to establish an optimal imaging analysis methodology for these tracers for consistency and comparability

Picture Recognition Errors in the Differential Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-168
Author(s):  
Helmut Hildebrandt ◽  
Jana Schill ◽  
Jana Bördgen ◽  
Andreas Kastrup ◽  
Paul Eling
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Response Bias ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Discriminatory Power ◽  
False Alarms ◽  
Picture Recognition ◽  
Recognition Errors

Abstract. This article explores the possibility of differentiating between patients suffering from Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and patients with other kinds of dementia by focusing on false alarms (FAs) on a picture recognition task (PRT). In Study 1, we compared AD and non-AD patients on the PRT and found that FAs discriminate well between these groups. Study 2 served to improve the discriminatory power of the FA score on the picture recognition task by adding associated pairs. Here, too, the FA score differentiated well between AD and non-AD patients, though the discriminatory power did not improve. The findings suggest that AD patients show a liberal response bias. Taken together, these studies suggest that FAs in picture recognition are of major importance for the clinical diagnosis of AD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document