Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Introduction to the recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease
Jack CR, Albert MS, Knopman DS, McKhann GM, Sperling RA, Carrillo MC, Thies B, Phelps CH.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2011-04-21
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Background Criteria for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) were established in 1984. A broad consensus now exists that these criteria should be revised to incorporate state-of-the-art scientific knowledge. Methods The National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer's Association sponsored a series of advisory round table meetings in 2009 whose purpose was to establish a process for revising diagnostic and research criteria for AD. The recommendation from these advisory meetings was that three separate work groups should be formed with each assigned the task of formulating diagnostic criteria for one phase of the disease: the dementia phase; the symptomatic, pre-dementia phase; and the asymptomatic, preclinical phase of AD. Results Two notable differences from the AD criteria published in 1984 are incorporation of biomarkers of the underlying disease state and formalization of different stages of disease in the diagnostic criteria. There was a broad consensus within all three workgroups that much additional work is needed to validate the application of biomarkers for diagnostic purposes. In the revised NIA-Alzheimer's Association criteria, a semantic and conceptual distinction is made between AD pathophysiological processes and clinically observable syndromes that result, whereas this distinction was blurred in the 1984 criteria. Conclusions The new criteria for AD are presented in three documents. The core clinical criteria of the recommendations regarding AD dementia and MCI due to AD are intended to guide diagnosis in the clinical setting. However, the recommendations of the preclinical AD workgroup are intended purely for research purposes.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jack, C. R., Albert, M. S., Knopman, D. S., McKhann, G. M., Sperling, R. A., Carrillo, M. C., et al. (2011). Introduction to the recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.004
Vancouver
Jack CR, Albert MS, Knopman DS, McKhann GM, Sperling RA, Carrillo MC, et al. Introduction to the recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2011. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.004. PMID: 21514247.
BibTeX
@article{jack2011-21514247,
author = {Jack, C. R. and Albert, M. S. and Knopman, D. S. and McKhann, G. M. and Sperling, R. A. and Carrillo, M. C. and Thies, B. and Phelps, C. H.},
title = {{Introduction to the recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2011},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.004},
pmid = {21514247},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.004}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Two notable differences from the AD criteria published in 1984 are incorporation of biomarkers of the underlying disease state and formalization of different stages of disease in the diagnostic criteria.
- In the revised NIA-Alzheimer's Association criteria, a semantic and conceptual distinction is made between AD pathophysiological processes and clinically observable syndromes that result, whereas this distinction was blurred in the 1984 criteria.
Why it matters
These revised guidelines add biomarkers and formal disease stages to Alzheimer's diagnosis and separate the underlying disease process from its clinical symptoms. They are diagnostic criteria only and do not provide a treatment or cure.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 58/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (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 | 2011 — within 20 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 7 / 7 | Cited 2,043 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 120.2 citations a year over 17 year(s) since 2011 |
| Impact for its field and year | 6 / 6 | Cited 86.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 4 / 6 | Cited by 90 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 340 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Creighton H. Phelps: h-index 26 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 9 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21514247) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 58 / 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).
Related
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. Showing 12 of 39.
Later studies that cite this one
90 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
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.