Frederiksen, Kristian Steen

Importance Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations. Objective To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states. Evidence Review PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched. Findings In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease. Conclusions and Relevance The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.

Abstract Background An international Delphi panel has defined a harmonized protocol (HarP) for the manual segmentation of the hippocampus on MR. The aim of this study is to study the concurrent validity of the HarP toward local protocols, and its major sources of variance. Methods Fourteen tracers segmented 10 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cases scanned at 1.5 T and 3T following local protocols, qualified for segmentation based on the HarP through a standard web‐platform and resegmented following the HarP. The five most accurate tracers followed the HarP to segment 15 ADNI cases acquired at three time points on both 1.5 T and 3T. Results The agreement among tracers was relatively low with the local protocols (absolute left/right ICC 0.44/0.43) and much higher with the HarP (absolute left/right ICC 0.88/0.89). On the larger set of 15 cases, the HarP agreement within (left/right ICC range: 0.94/0.95 to 0.99/0.99) and among tracers (left/right ICC range: 0.89/0.90) was very high. The volume variance due to different tracers was 0.9% of the total, comparing favorably to variance due to scanner manufacturer (1.2), atrophy rates (3.5), hemispheric asymmetry (3.7), field strength (4.4), and significantly smaller than the variance due to atrophy (33.5%, P < .001), and physiological variability (49.2%, P < .001). Conclusions The HarP has high measurement stability compared with local segmentation protocols, and good reproducibility within and among human tracers. Hippocampi segmented with the HarP can be used as a reference for the qualification of human tracers and automated segmentation algorithms.