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. Bio-marker 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.

This article provides a classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and its 3 main variants to improve the uniformity of case reporting and the reliability of research results. Criteria for the 3 variants of PPA-nonfluent/agrammatic, semantic, and logopenic-were developed by an international group of PPA investigators who convened on 3 occasions to operationalize earlier published clinical descriptions for PPA subtypes. Patients are first diagnosed with PPA and are then divided into clinical variants based on specific speech and language features characteristic of each subtype. Classification can then be further specified as "imaging-supported" if the expected pattern of atrophy is found and "with definite pathology" if pathologic or genetic data are available. The working recommendations are presented in lists of features, and suggested assessment tasks are also provided. These recommendations have been widely agreed upon by a large group of experts and should be used to ensure consistency of PPA classification in future studies. Future collaborations will collect prospective data to identify relationships between each of these syndromes and specific biomarkers for a more detailed understanding of clinicopathologic correlations. Neurology

SUMMARY Several families have been reported with autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), genetically linked to chromosome 9p21. Here we report an expansion of a non-coding GGGGCC hexanucleotide repeat in the gene C9ORF72 that is strongly associated with disease in a large FTD/ALS kindred, previously reported to be conclusively linked to chromosome 9p. This same repeat expansion was identified in the majority of our families with a combined FTD/ALS phenotype and TDP-43 based pathology. Analysis of extended clinical series found the C9ORF72 repeat expansion to be the most common genetic abnormality in both familial FTD (11.7%) and familial ALS (22.5%). The repeat expansion leads to the loss of one alternatively spliced C9ORF72 transcript and to formation of nuclear RNA foci, suggesting multiple disease mechanisms. Our findings indicate that repeat expansion in C9ORF72 is a major cause of both FTD and ALS.

Based on the recent literature and collective experience, an international consortium developed revised guidelines for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. The validation process retrospectively reviewed clinical records and compared the sensitivity of proposed and earlier criteria in a multi-site sample of patients with pathologically verified frontotemporal lobar degeneration. According to the revised criteria, 'possible' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia requires three of six clinically discriminating features (disinhibition, apathy/inertia, loss of sympathy/empathy, perseverative/compulsive behaviours, hyperorality and dysexecutive neuropsychological profile). 'Probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia adds functional disability and characteristic neuroimaging, while behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia 'with definite frontotemporal lobar degeneration' requires histopathological confirmation or a pathogenic mutation. Sixteen brain banks contributed cases meeting histopathological criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and a clinical diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies or vascular dementia at presentation. Cases with predominant primary progressive aphasia or extra-pyramidal syndromes were excluded. In these autopsy-confirmed cases, an experienced neurologist or psychiatrist ascertained clinical features necessary for making a diagnosis according to previous and proposed criteria at presentation. Of 137 cases where features were available for both proposed and previously established criteria, 118 (86%) met 'possible' criteria, and 104 (76%) met criteria for 'probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. In contrast, 72 cases (53%) met previously established criteria for the syndrome (P < 0.001 for comparison with 'possible' and 'probable' criteria). Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. In conclusion, the revised criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia improve diagnostic accuracy compared with previously established criteria in a sample with known frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Greater sensitivity of the proposed criteria may reflect the optimized diagnostic features, less restrictive exclusion features and a flexible structure that accommodates different initial clinical presentations. Future studies will be needed to establish the reliability and specificity of these revised diagnostic guidelines.

Currently available evidence strongly supports the position that the initiating event in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is related to abnormal processing of β-amyloid (Aβ) peptide, ultimately leading to formation of Aβ plaques in the brain. This process occurs while individuals are still cognitively normal. Biomarkers of brain β-amyloidosis are reductions in CSF Aβ 42 and increased amyloid PET tracer retention. After a lag period, which varies from patient to patient, neuronal dysfunction and neurodegeneration become the dominant pathological processes. Biomarkers of neuronal injury and neurodegeneration are increased CSF tau and structural MRI measures of cerebral atrophy. Neurodegeneration is accompanied by synaptic dysfunction, which is indicated by decreased fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on PET. We propose a model that relates disease stage to AD biomarkers in which Aβ biomarkers become abnormal first, before neurodegenerative biomarkers and cognitive symptoms, and neurodegenerative biomarkers become abnormal later, and correlate with clinical symptom severity.

In 2010, the authors published a hypothetical model of the major biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The model was received with interest because we described the temporal evolution of AD biomarkers in relation to each other and to the onset and progression of clinical symptoms. In the interim, evidence has accumulated that supports the major assumptions of this model. Evidence has also appeared that challenges some of the assumptions underlying our original model. Recent evidence has allowed us to modify our original model. Refinements include indexing subjects by time rather than clinical symptom severity; incorporating inter-subject variability in cognitive response to the progression of AD pathophysiology; modifications of the specific temporal ordering of some biomarkers; and, recognition that the two major proteinopathies underlying AD biomarker changes, Aβ and tau, may be initiated independently in late onset AD where we hypothesize that an incident Aβopathy can accelerate an antecedent tauopathy.

We recommend a new term, “primary age-related tauopathy” (PART), to describe a pathology that is commonly observed in the brains of aged individuals. Many autopsy studies have reported brains with neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) that are indistinguishable from those of Alzheimer's disease (AD), in the absence of amyloid (Aβ) plaques. For these “NFT+/Aβ−” brains, for which formal criteria for AD neuropathologic changes are not met, the NFT are mostly restricted to structures in the medial temporal lobe, basal forebrain, brainstem, and olfactory areas (bulb and cortex). Symptoms in persons with PART usually range from normal to amnestic cognitive changes, with only a minority exhibiting profound impairment. Because cognitive impairment is often mild, existing clinicopathologic designations, such as “tangle-only dementia” and “tangle-predominant senile dementia”, are imprecise and not appropriate for most subjects. PART is almost universally detectable at autopsy among elderly individuals, yet this pathological process cannot be specifically identified pre-mortem at the present time. Improved biomarkers and tau imaging may enable diagnosis of PART in clinical settings in the future. Indeed, recent studies have identified a common biomarker profile consisting of temporal lobe atrophy and tauopathy without evidence of Aβ accumulation. For both researchers and clinicians, a revised nomenclature will raise awareness of this extremely common pathologic change while providing a conceptual foundation for future studies. Prior reports that have elucidated features of the pathologic entity we refer to as PART are discussed, and working neuropathological diagnostic criteria are proposed.

Biomarkers have become an essential component of Alzheimer disease (AD) research and because of the pervasiveness of AD pathology in the elderly, the same biomarkers are used in cognitive aging research. A number of current issues suggest that an unbiased descriptive classification scheme for these biomarkers would be useful. We propose the “A/T/N” system in which 7 major AD biomarkers are divided into 3 binary categories based on the nature of the pathophysiology that each measures. “A” refers to the value of a β-amyloid biomarker (amyloid PET or CSF Aβ42); “T,” the value of a tau biomarker (CSF phospho tau, or tau PET); and “N,” biomarkers of neurodegeneration or neuronal injury ([18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose–PET, structural MRI, or CSF total tau). Each biomarker category is rated as positive or negative. An individual score might appear as A+/T+/N−, or A+/T−/N−, etc. The A/T/N system includes the new modality tau PET. It is agnostic to the temporal ordering of mechanisms underlying AD pathogenesis. It includes all individuals in any population regardless of the mix of biomarker findings and therefore is suited to population studies of cognitive aging. It does not specify disease labels and thus is not a diagnostic classification system. It is a descriptive system for categorizing multidomain biomarker findings at the individual person level in a format that is easy to understand and use. Given the present lack of consensus among AD specialists on terminology across the clinically normal to dementia spectrum, a biomarker classification scheme will have broadest acceptance if it is independent from any one clinically defined diagnostic scheme.