This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

60/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 60 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

It has been suggested that the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer disease (AD) is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a shift toward a biomarker-based approach, as proposed by the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of Alzheimer's Disease. These criteria advocate for diagnosing AD solely on biomarkers, without requiring clinical symptoms. This article explores the drivers behind this transition, primarily influenced by the Food and Drug Administration's approval of amyloid-lowering treatments. We evaluate the proposed criteria, which allow for an AD diagnosis based on amyloid "A" or phosphorylated tau "T1" positivity through surrogate amyloid PET imaging, CSF, or plasma biomarkers, and consider the arguments for and against their use. The merits of the new criteria include a clearer definition of AD, which is currently used interchangeably to refer to both the presence of neuropathology and the clinical syndrome. We argue that a purely biological definition risks a category error and emphasize the need for longitudinal data to establish the lifetime risk of dementia in amyloid-positive and tau-positive individuals. We also caution against limiting the scope of biomarker-based AD diagnosis to amyloid and tau alone. In conclusion, we recommend that the criteria remain within the research domain for the present while advocating for the considered adoption of plasma biomarkers in clinical practice.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Hazan, J., Liu, K. Y., Costello, H., Isaacs, J. D., Thambisetty, M., & Howard, R. (2024). Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000209884

Vancouver

Hazan J, Liu KY, Costello H, Isaacs JD, Thambisetty M, Howard R. Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease. Neurology. 2024. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209884. PMID: 39353147.

BibTeX

@article{hazan2024-39353147,
  author  = {Hazan, J. and Liu, K. Y. and Costello, H. and Isaacs, J. D. and Thambisetty, M. and Howard, R.},
  title   = {{Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000209884},
  pmid    = {39353147},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000209884}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

It has been suggested that the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer disease (AD) is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a shift toward a biomarker-based approach, as proposed by the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of Alzheimer's Disease.
In conclusion, we recommend that the criteria remain within the research domain for the present while advocating for the considered adoption of plasma biomarkers in clinical practice.

Why it matters

This article argues that defining Alzheimer disease by biomarkers alone risks a category error and that more longitudinal data are needed to know the lifetime dementia risk in amyloid-positive and tau-positive people. It recommends keeping the criteria in the research domain for now and does not offer a treatment, cure or prevention.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 60/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record	4 / 4	Neurology: journal h-index 525 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	3 / 7	Cited 28 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	7.0 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 7.6× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 2 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 28 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Robert Howard: h-index 95 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	3 / 3	National Institutes of Health: institution h-index 2,723 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39353147)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	60 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Biomarkers from nearby years

Also in Biomarkers

147 studies in the library are filed under Biomarkers with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Biomarkers hub.

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →