Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease
Jack CR Jr, Bennett DA, Blennow K, Carrillo MC, Dunn B, Haeberlein SB, et al.. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 2018-04
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
This influential 2018 paper proposed defining Alzheimer's disease by what is happening biologically in the brain (amyloid plaques, tau tangles, and neuron loss, measured by scans or spinal fluid tests) instead of by memory symptoms alone. It explicitly said this 'AT(N)' framework was meant for research studies, not everyday clinical diagnosis. It became the reference point that later biomarker and blood-test studies built on and that the 2024 revised clinical criteria updated.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jack, C. R., Jr., Bennett, D. A., Blennow, K., Carrillo, M. C., Dunn, B., Haeberlein, S. B., et al. (2018). NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia.
Vancouver
Jack CR Jr, Bennett DA, Blennow K, Carrillo MC, Dunn B, Haeberlein SB, et al. NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia. 2018.
BibTeX
@article{jack2018-75cea84d,
author = {Jack, Jr., C. R. and Bennett, D. A. and Blennow, K. and Carrillo, M. C. and Dunn, B. and Haeberlein, S. B. and others},
title = {{NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& Dementia},
year = {2018}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Introduced the A (amyloid)/T (tau)/N (neurodegeneration) biomarker classification framework
- Defined AD as a biological continuum documented by biomarkers or autopsy, independent of symptoms
- Explicitly restricted to research use, not clinical diagnostic guidelines, at time of publication
- Became the most-cited conceptual basis for later blood biomarker (p-tau217 etc.) validation studies
Why it matters
This influential 2018 paper proposed defining Alzheimer's disease by what is happening biologically in the brain (amyloid plaques, tau tangles, and neuron loss, measured by scans or spinal fluid tests) instead of by memory symptoms alone. It explicitly said this 'AT(N)' framework was meant for research studies, not everyday clinical diagnosis.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
Limitations
This is a consensus/position paper, not an empirical study — it reports no original patient data, and by the authors' own statement was not intended as a clinical diagnostic tool at the time; it was superseded/updated by revised clinical criteria in 2024.
How this study scored 42/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people, randomized / blinded and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 42 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & Dementia) |
| 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 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 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 | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 42 out of 100. |
| Total | 42 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
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.