Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain, Department of Neurology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Eur J Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;33(7):607-612. doi: 10.1007/s10654-018-0418-4. Epub 2018 Jun 9.
A recently published framework for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in research studies would allow diagnosis on the sole basis of two biomarkers (β-amyloid and pathologic tau), even in people with no objective or subjective memory or cognitive changes. This revision will have substantial implications for future Alzheimer's research, and the changes should be rigorously evaluated before widespread adoption. We propose three principles for evaluating any revision to diagnostic frameworks for AD: (1) does the revision improve the validity of the diagnosis; (2) does the revision improve the reliability or reduce the expense of the diagnosis; and (3) will the revision foster innovative and rigorous research across populations. The new diagnostic framework is unlikely to achieve any of these goals. Instead, it has the potential to handicap future researchers, and slow progress towards identifying effective strategies to prevent or treat AD.
最近发表的一个阿尔茨海默病(AD)研究诊断框架,即使在没有客观或主观记忆或认知变化的人群中,也可以仅基于两种生物标志物(β-淀粉样蛋白和病理tau)进行诊断。这一修订将对未来的阿尔茨海默病研究产生重大影响,在广泛采用之前,应该对这些变化进行严格评估。我们提出了评估 AD 诊断框架任何修订的三个原则:(1)修订是否提高了诊断的有效性;(2)修订是否提高了诊断的可靠性或降低了诊断的费用;(3)修订是否有利于在不同人群中开展创新和严格的研究。新的诊断框架不太可能实现这些目标中的任何一个。相反,它有可能阻碍未来的研究人员,并减缓确定预防或治疗 AD 的有效策略的进展。