Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria
Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, Dekosky ST, Barberger-Gateau P, Cummings J, Delacourte A, Galasko D et al.. The Lancet. Neurology, 2007-08-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. Distinctive and reliable biomarkers of AD are now available through structural MRI, molecular neuroimaging with PET, and cerebrospinal fluid analyses. This progress provides the impetus for our proposal of revised diagnostic criteria for AD. Our framework was developed to capture both the earliest stages, before full-blown dementia, as well as the full spectrum of the illness. These new criteria are centred on a clinical core of early and significant episodic memory impairment. They stipulate that there must also be at least one or more abnormal biomarkers among structural neuroimaging with MRI, molecular neuroimaging with PET, and cerebrospinal fluid analysis of amyloid beta or tau proteins. The timeliness of these criteria is highlighted by the many drugs in development that are directed at changing pathogenesis, particularly at the production and clearance of amyloid beta as well as at the hyperphosphorylation state of tau. Validation studies in existing and prospective cohorts are needed to advance these criteria and optimise their sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
Key findings
- These new criteria are centred on a clinical core of early and significant episodic memory impairment.
Why it matters
This proposal revised the diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease to capture the earliest stages before full-blown dementia, centering on early and significant episodic memory impairment plus at least one abnormal biomarker from MRI, PET, or cerebrospinal fluid analysis of amyloid beta or tau proteins. The authors note that validation studies are needed to optimize the criteria's sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 63/100
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 (The Lancet. Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | The Lancet Neurology: journal h-index 457 (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 | 2007 — 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 4,415 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 210.2 citations a year over 21 year(s) since 2007 |
| Impact for its field and year | 6 / 6 | Cited 118.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 6 / 6 | Cited by 223 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 429 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 4 / 4 | Last-listed author Philip Scheltens: h-index 181 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Inserm: institution h-index 1,988 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 19 institution(s) in 6 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17616482) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 63 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Dubois, B., Feldman, H. H., Jacova, C., Dekosky, S. T., Barberger-Gateau, P., Cummings, J., et al. (2007). Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. The Lancet. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(07)70178-3
Vancouver
Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, Dekosky ST, Barberger-Gateau P, Cummings J, et al. Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. The Lancet. Neurology. 2007. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(07)70178-3. PMID: 17616482.
BibTeX
@article{dubois2007-17616482,
author = {Dubois, B. and Feldman, H. H. and Jacova, C. and Dekosky, S. T. and Barberger-Gateau, P. and Cummings, J. and Delacourte, A. and Galasko, D. and others},
title = {{Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria}},
journal = {The Lancet. Neurology},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1016/s1474-4422(07)70178-3},
pmid = {17616482},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(07)70178-3}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 52.
Later studies that cite this one
223 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.