Home › Research › Brain tissue and pathology
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. Neurobiology of Aging, 1997-07-01
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 [2] . 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. (1997). Neurobiology of Aging. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-4580(97)00057-2
Vancouver
Consensus Recommendations for the Postmortem Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurobiology of Aging. 1997. doi:10.1016/s0197-4580(97)00057-2.
BibTeX
@article{study1997-f89e7c32,
title = {{Consensus Recommendations for the Postmortem Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease}},
journal = {Neurobiology of Aging},
year = {1997},
doi = {10.1016/s0197-4580(97)00057-2},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0197-4580(97)00057-2}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. The record's author field reads “The National Institute on Aging and Reagan Institute Working Group on Diagnostic Criteria for the Neuropathological Assessment of Alzheimer’s Disease”, which cannot be turned into a citation name, so it is left out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- 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 [2] .
- 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.
Why it matters
This report summarizes consensus recommendations from a panel of neuropathologists to improve postmortem diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease. It is a diagnostic criteria paper and does not directly address treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 49/100
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 senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 93 points we could judge it on, which is 49 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurobiology of Aging) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Neurobiology of Aging: journal h-index 263 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| 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 982 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 4 / 5 | 31.7 citations a year over 31 year(s) since 1997 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 12.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 5 / 6 | Cited by 136 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 2 / 4 | Cited 47 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 46 / 93 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 93 points we could judge it on is 49 out of 100. |
| Total | 49 / 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 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
136 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Brain tissue and pathology
Also in Brain tissue and pathology
124 studies in the library are filed under Brain tissue and pathology with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Brain tissue and pathology hub.