Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Revising the definition of Alzheimer's disease: a new lexicon
Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, Cummings JL, Dekosky ST, Barberger-Gateau P, Delacourte A, Frisoni G et al.. The Lancet. Neurology, 2010-10-09
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is classically defined as a dual clinicopathological entity. The recent advances in use of reliable biomarkers of AD that provide in-vivo evidence of the disease has stimulated the development of new research criteria that reconceptualise the diagnosis around both a specific pattern of cognitive changes and structural/biological evidence of Alzheimer's pathology. This new diagnostic framework has stimulated debate about the definition of AD and related conditions. The potential for drugs to intercede in the pathogenic cascade of the disease adds some urgency to this debate. This paper by the International Working Group for New Research Criteria for the Diagnosis of AD aims to advance the scientific discussion by providing broader diagnostic coverage of the AD clinical spectrum and by proposing a common lexicon as a point of reference for the clinical and research communities. The cornerstone of this lexicon is to consider AD solely as a clinical and symptomatic entity that encompasses both predementia and dementia phases.
Key findings
- The recent advances in use of reliable biomarkers of AD that provide in-vivo evidence of the disease has stimulated the development of new research criteria that reconceptualise the diagnosis around both a specific pattern of cognitive changes and structural/biological evidence of Alzheimer's pathology.
- This new diagnostic framework has stimulated debate about the definition of AD and related conditions.
- The potential for drugs to intercede in the pathogenic cascade of the disease adds some urgency to this debate.
- This paper by the International Working Group for New Research Criteria for the Diagnosis of AD aims to advance the scientific discussion by providing broader diagnostic coverage of the AD clinical spectrum and by proposing a common lexicon as a point of reference for the clinical and research communities.
- The cornerstone of this lexicon is to consider AD solely as a clinical and symptomatic entity that encompasses both predementia and dementia phases.
Why it matters
An international expert group (the International Working Group for New Research Criteria for the Diagnosis of AD) proposed a shared vocabulary for Alzheimer's, because biomarkers that give "in-vivo evidence of the disease" had led to new research criteria combining a specific pattern of memory and thinking changes with biological evidence of Alzheimer's pathology. Its central proposal is to treat Alzheimer's as "a clinical and symptomatic entity that encompasses both predementia and dementia phases." This is an expert position paper with no patient data, written for researchers and clinicians, and the authors note that the framework has "stimulated debate".
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 61/100
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 | 2010 — 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 1,876 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 104.2 citations a year over 18 year(s) since 2010 |
| Impact for its field and year | 6 / 6 | Cited 117.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 5 / 6 | Cited by 122 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 3 / 4 | Cited 147 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 | University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 28 institution(s) in 8 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20934914) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 61 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70223-4
- PubMed: 20934914
- Original source →
- Free full text: Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University) →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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., Cummings, J. L., Dekosky, S. T., Barberger-Gateau, P., et al. (2010). Revising the definition of Alzheimer's disease: a new lexicon. The Lancet. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70223-4
Vancouver
Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, Cummings JL, Dekosky ST, Barberger-Gateau P, et al. Revising the definition of Alzheimer's disease: a new lexicon. The Lancet. Neurology. 2010. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70223-4. PMID: 20934914.
BibTeX
@article{dubois2010-20934914,
author = {Dubois, B. and Feldman, H. H. and Jacova, C. and Cummings, J. L. and Dekosky, S. T. and Barberger-Gateau, P. and Delacourte, A. and Frisoni, G. and others},
title = {{Revising the definition of Alzheimer's disease: a new lexicon}},
journal = {The Lancet. Neurology},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70223-4},
pmid = {20934914},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(10)70223-4}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 58.
Later studies that cite this one
122 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.