Cabreira Verónica Alheia, Isaacs Jeremy D
Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Porto, Portugal.
Neurol Clin Pract. 2025 Jun;15(3):e200481. doi: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200481. Epub 2025 May 2.
The recently published Alzheimer's Association Workgroup diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer disease and consensus-based workflows for the use of diagnostic biomarkers in neurocognitive disorders promote further normalization of purely biological approaches to neurocognitive disorders. In this commentary, we reflect on the dangers of biological reductionist positions lacking solid scientific evidence and proven cost-effectiveness benefits, in particular its inability to offer a meaningful formulation for the large number of people with functional cognitive disorders. This, alongside the current lack of standardization, limited accuracy, and environmental consequences, means that the normalization of biomarkers as standard-of-care tests in all neurocognitive presentations does not represent responsible innovation. We emphasize the need for pluralism when considering technological developments, such that clinical judgment and biopsychosocial formulation continue to be accepted as a sound foundation for cognitive assessment.
阿尔茨海默病协会工作组最近发布的阿尔茨海默病诊断标准以及基于共识的神经认知障碍诊断生物标志物使用工作流程,推动了神经认知障碍纯生物学方法的进一步规范化。在这篇评论中,我们反思了缺乏坚实科学证据和已证实成本效益优势的生物还原论立场的危险性,特别是其无法为大量功能性认知障碍患者提供有意义的表述。这一点,再加上目前缺乏标准化、准确性有限以及环境影响,意味着将生物标志物作为所有神经认知表现的标准护理测试进行规范化并不代表负责任的创新。我们强调在考虑技术发展时需要多元化,以便临床判断和生物心理社会表述继续被视为认知评估的坚实基础。