Author
Yaakov Stern
Other affiliations: Yeshiva University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital ...read more
Bio: Yaakov Stern is an academic researcher from Columbia University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Dementia & Cognition. The author has an hindex of 145, co-authored 762 publications receiving 83679 citations. Previous affiliations of Yaakov Stern include Yeshiva University & Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
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
Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University1, University of British Columbia2, University of Pittsburgh3, French Institute of Health and Medical Research4, University of California, Los Angeles5, University of California, San Diego6, McGill University7, University of Kentucky8, Tohoku University9, Brown University10, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital11, VU University Medical Center12
TL;DR: The NINCDS-ADRDA and DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The NINCDS-ADRDA and the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are the prevailing diagnostic standards in research; however, they have now fallen behind the unprecedented growth of scientific knowledge. Distinctive and reliable biomarkers of AD are now available through structural MRI, molecular neuroimaging with PET, and cerebrospinal fluid analyses. This progress provides the impetus for our proposal of revised diagnostic criteria for AD. Our framework was developed to capture both the earliest stages, before full-blown dementia, as well as the full spectrum of the illness. These new criteria are centred on a clinical core of early and significant episodic memory impairment. They stipulate that there must also be at least one or more abnormal biomarkers among structural neuroimaging with MRI, molecular neuroimaging with PET, and cerebrospinal fluid analysis of amyloid beta or tau proteins. The timeliness of these criteria is highlighted by the many drugs in development that are directed at changing pathogenesis, particularly at the production and clearance of amyloid beta as well as at the hyperphosphorylation state of tau. Validation studies in existing and prospective cohorts are needed to advance these criteria and optimise their sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.
3,951 citations
TL;DR: This paper attempts to develop a coherent theoretical account of reserve, a distinction is suggested between reserve, the ability to optimize or maximize normal performance, and compensation, an attempt to maximize performance in the face of brain damage by using brain structures or networks not engaged when the brain is not damaged.
Abstract: The idea of reserve against brain damage stems from the repeated observation that there does not appear to be a direct relationship between the degree of brain pathology or brain damage and the clinical manifestation of that damage. This paper attempts to develop a coherent theoretical account of reserve. One convenient subdivision of reserve models revolves around whether they envision reserve as a passive process, such as in brain reserve or threshold, or see the brain as actively attempting to cope with or compensate for pathology, as in cognitive reserve. Cognitive reserve may be based on more efficient utilization of brain networks or of enhanced ability to recruit alternate brain networks as needed. A distinction is suggested between reserve, the ability to optimize or maximize normal performance, and compensation, an attempt to maximize performance in the face of brain damage by using brain structures or networks not engaged when the brain is not damaged. Epidemiologic and imaging data that help to develop and support the concept of reserve are presented.
3,136 citations
Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University1, French Institute of Health and Medical Research2, University of British Columbia3, UBC Hospital4, Beta5, Sahlgrenska University Hospital6, University of Virginia7, McGill University8, Brigham and Women's Hospital9, Washington University in St. Louis10, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University11, University College London12, University of Antwerp13, University of Geneva14, University of California, San Diego15, University of Kentucky16, Karolinska University Hospital17, university of lille18, University of California, San Francisco19, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis20, Brown University21, University of Paris22, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais23, Maastricht University Medical Centre24, University of Southern California25, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital26, VU University Amsterdam27, Lou Ruvo Brain Institute28
TL;DR: It is proposed that downstream topographical biomarkers of the disease, such as volumetric MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose PET, might better serve in the measurement and monitoring of the course of disease.
Abstract: In the past 8 years, both the International Working Group (IWG) and the US National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association have contributed criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that better define clinical phenotypes and integrate biomarkers into the diagnostic process, covering the full staging of the disease. This Position Paper considers the strengths and limitations of the IWG research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework. On the basis of these refinements, the diagnosis of AD can be simplified, requiring the presence of an appropriate clinical AD phenotype (typical or atypical) and a pathophysiological biomarker consistent with the presence of Alzheimer's pathology. We propose that downstream topographical biomarkers of the disease, such as volumetric MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose PET, might better serve in the measurement and monitoring of the course of disease. This paper also elaborates on the specific diagnostic criteria for atypical forms of AD, for mixed AD, and for the preclinical states of AD.
2,581 citations
TL;DR: Cognitive reserve provides an explanation for differences between individuals in susceptibility to age-related brain changes or pathology related to Alzheimer's disease, whereby some people can tolerate more of these changes than others and maintain function.
Abstract: The concept of cognitive reserve provides an explanation for differences between individuals in susceptibility to age-related brain changes or pathology related to Alzheimer's disease, whereby some people can tolerate more of these changes than others and maintain function. Epidemiological studies suggest that lifelong experiences, including educational and occupational attainment, and leisure activities in later life, can increase this reserve. For example, the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease is reduced in individuals with higher educational or occupational attainment. Reserve can conveniently be divided into two types: brain reserve, which refers to differences in the brain structure that may increase tolerance to pathology, and cognitive reserve, which refers to differences between individuals in how tasks are performed that might enable some people to be more resilient to brain changes than others. Greater understanding of the concept of cognitive reserve could lead to interventions to slow cognitive ageing or reduce the risk of dementia.
2,278 citations
Cited by
More filters
28 Jul 2005
TL;DR: PfPMP1）与感染红细胞、树突状组胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用，在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作�ly.
Abstract: 抗原变异可使得多种致病微生物易于逃避宿主免疫应答。表达在感染红细胞表面的恶性疟原虫红细胞表面蛋白1（PfPMP1）与感染红细胞、内皮细胞、树突状细胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用，在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作用。每个单倍体基因组var基因家族编码约60种成员，通过启动转录不同的var基因变异体为抗原变异提供了分子基础。
18,940 citations
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
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.
9,618 citations
9,362 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a technique for automatically assigning a neuroanatomical label to each voxel in an MRI volume based on probabilistic information automatically estimated from a manually labeled training set is presented.
7,120 citations