Author
Walter J. Koroshetz
Bio: Walter J. Koroshetz is an academic researcher from National Institutes of Health. The author has contributed to research in topics: Stroke & Dementia. The author has an hindex of 26, co-authored 66 publications receiving 18321 citations.
Topics: Stroke, Dementia, Population, Neuroethics, Endarterectomy
Papers
More filters
Johns Hopkins University1, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine2, Mayo Clinic3, McGill University4, Harvard University5, University of California, Irvine6, University of Pittsburgh7, Columbia University Medical Center8, Eli Lilly and Company9, Washington University in St. Louis10, UCL Institute of Neurology11, VU University Medical Center12, Alzheimer's Association13, Northwestern University14, National Institutes of Health15
TL;DR: The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available.
Abstract: The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.
13,710 citations
Journal Article•
4,547 citations
National Institutes of Health1, University of Pittsburgh2, Bayer Corporation3, CHDI Foundation4, Cornell University5, Rockefeller University6, Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation7, University of Massachusetts Medical School8, University of Nebraska Medical Center9, American Medical Association10, Michigan State University11, University of Rochester12, University of Melbourne13, Stanford University14, American Association for the Advancement of Science15, Harvard University16, Hoffmann-La Roche17, University of California, Los Angeles18, University of Edinburgh19, University of California, San Francisco20, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Therapy Development Institute21, University of California, Irvine22, Food and Drug Administration23
TL;DR: The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data.
Abstract: The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.
1,037 citations
Alzheimer's Association1, National Institutes of Health2, Wake Forest University3, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill4, Harvard University5, Mayo Clinic6, Cleveland Clinic7, University of Washington8, Cornell University9, Rush University Medical Center10, University of British Columbia11, University of Kentucky12, Washington University in St. Louis13, University of Southern California14
TL;DR: A summary of the meeting and the resultant discussion of how vascular factors contribute to Alzheimer's disease and related dementia is summarized, including an outline of next steps needed to move this area of research forward.
Abstract: Scientific evidence continues to demonstrate the linkage of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia such as Alzheimer's disease. In December, 2013, the Alzheimer's Association, with scientific input from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute from the National Institutes of Health, convened scientific experts to discuss the research gaps in our understanding of how vascular factors contribute to Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. This manuscript summarizes the meeting and the resultant discussion, including an outline of next steps needed to move this area of research forward.
490 citations
TL;DR: The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study was created to answer the most pressing public health questions of the authors' day.
445 citations
Cited by
More filters
Johns Hopkins University1, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine2, Mayo Clinic3, McGill University4, Harvard University5, University of California, Irvine6, University of Pittsburgh7, Columbia University Medical Center8, Eli Lilly and Company9, Washington University in St. Louis10, UCL Institute of Neurology11, VU University Medical Center12, Alzheimer's Association13, Northwestern University14, National Institutes of Health15
TL;DR: The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available.
Abstract: The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.
13,710 citations
TL;DR: These guidelines supersede the prior 2007 guidelines and 2009 updates and support the overarching concept of stroke systems of care and detail aspects of stroke care from patient recognition; emergency medical services activation, transport, and triage; through the initial hours in the emergency department and stroke unit.
Abstract: Background and Purpose—The authors present an overview of the current evidence and management recommendations for evaluation and treatment of adults with acute ischemic stroke. The intended audienc...
7,214 citations
5,737 citations
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, University of California, San Diego2, University of California, Davis3, Rush University Medical Center4, University of Washington5, Washington University in St. Louis6, University of Tokyo7, Mayo Clinic8, Oregon Health & Science University9, University of Texas at Dallas10, University of Melbourne11, Eli Lilly and Company12, Columbia University13, University of California, San Francisco14, Alzheimer's Association15, National Institutes of Health16
TL;DR: A conceptual framework and operational research criteria are proposed, based on the prevailing scientific evidence to date, to test and refine these models with longitudinal clinical research studies and it is hoped that these recommendations will provide a common rubric to advance the study of preclinical AD.
Abstract: The pathophysiological process of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is thought to begin many years before the diagnosis of AD dementia. This long "preclinical" phase of AD would provide a critical opportunity for therapeutic intervention; however, we need to further elucidate the link between the pathological cascade of AD and the emergence of clinical symptoms. The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened an international workgroup to review the biomarker, epidemiological, and neuropsychological evidence, and to develop recommendations to determine the factors which best predict the risk of progression from "normal" cognition to mild cognitive impairment and AD dementia. We propose a conceptual framework and operational research criteria, based on the prevailing scientific evidence to date, to test and refine these models with longitudinal clinical research studies. These recommendations are solely intended for research purposes and do not have any clinical implications at this time. It is hoped that these recommendations will provide a common rubric to advance the study of preclinical AD, and ultimately, aid the field in moving toward earlier intervention at a stage of AD when some disease-modifying therapies may be most efficacious.
5,671 citations
Mayo Clinic1, Rush University2, University of Gothenburg3, Alzheimer's Association4, Silver Spring Networks5, Biogen Idec6, Washington University in St. Louis7, University of California, Berkeley8, University of Cologne9, University of Pennsylvania10, Stanford University11, National Institutes of Health12, University of California, San Francisco13, University of Melbourne14, VU University Medical Center15, Eli Lilly and Company16, Brigham and Women's Hospital17
TL;DR: This research framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms and envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD.
Abstract: In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a "research framework" because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.
5,126 citations