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.

40/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

This report summarizes the consensus recommendations of a panel of neuropathologists from the United States and Europe to improve the postmortem diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease. The recommendations followed from a two-day workshop sponsored by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Ronald and Nancy Reagan Institute of the Alzheimer's Association to reassess the original NIA criteria for the postmortem diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease published in 1985. The consensus recommendations for improving the neuropathological criteria for the postmortem diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease are reported here, and the "position papers" by members of the Working Group that accompany this report elaborate on the research findings and concepts upon which these recommendations were based. Further, commentaries by other experts in the field also are included here to provide additional perspectives on these recommendations. Finally, it is anticipated that future meetings of the Working Group will reassess these recommendations and the implementation of postmortem diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease.

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

APA 7th

Consensus recommendations for the postmortem diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. The National Institute on Aging, and Reagan Institute Working Group on Diagnostic Criteria for the Neuropathological Assessment of Alzheimer's Disease. (1997). Neurobiology of aging.

Vancouver

BibTeX

@article{study1997-9330978,
  title   = {{Consensus recommendations for the postmortem diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. The National Institute on Aging, and Reagan Institute Working Group on Diagnostic Criteria for the Neuropathological Assessment of Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {Neurobiology of aging},
  year    = {1997},
  pmid    = {9330978}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no authors, DOI, so the citation leaves them out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Why it matters

Summarizes consensus recommendations from a panel of neuropathologists in the United States and Europe for improving the criteria used to diagnose Alzheimer's disease after death, reassessing the original NIA criteria published in 1985. It is a criteria paper and does not itself treat Alzheimer's.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →

How this study scored 40/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on strength of evidence, journal's citation record, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 34 of the 84 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of aging)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	— / 5	No evidence rating recorded — left out of this score
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	1997 — older than 20 years, still counted
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)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	6 / 7	Cited 746 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	24.1 citations a year over 31 year(s) since 1997
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 44 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration	0 / 3	OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 9330978)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	34 / 84	Scored on 16 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 34 of the 84 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total	40 / 100	—

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

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

Also in Getting a diagnosis

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

Similar studies

More on Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →