We developed prediction rules to guide the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in two community-based cohort studies (the Religious Orders Study and the Rush Memory and Aging Project). The rules were implemented without informant interviews, neuroimaging, blood work or routine case conferencing. Autopsies were performed at death and the pathologic diagnosis of AD made with a modified version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) criteria. We compared the positive predictive value of the clinical diagnosis in the two community-based studies to the positive predictive value of the clinical diagnosis of AD made by standard clinical practice in a clinic-based cohort study using AD pathology as the gold standard. Of 306 clinic cases with probable AD, 286 (93.5%) met CERAD neuropathologic criteria for AD; the results were comparable for those with possible AD (51 of 54, 94.4%). Of 141 study subjects with probable AD, 130 (92.2%) met CERAD neuropathologic criteria for AD; the results were lower but acceptable for those with possible AD (26 of 37, 70.3%). The results were similar in secondary analyses using alternate neuropathologic criteria for AD. The clinical diagnosis of AD can be made in community-based studies without the use of informant interviews, neuroimaging, blood work or routine case conferencing. This approach holds promise for reducing the operational costs of epidemiologic studies of aging and AD.

Keywords:
Alzheimer’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, diagnosis, Decision rules, Alzheimer’s disease, pathology
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
2006
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.