4.7 Review

Consortium to establish a registry for Alzheimer's disease (CERAD): The first twenty years

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 96-109

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.08.005

关键词

consortium to establish a registry for Alzheimer's disease; CERAD; Alzheimer's disease; clinical assessment; neuropsychological assessment; neuropathological assessment; norms; prevalence; incidence

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P30AG010124, P50AG005128, P30AG028716, U01AG006790, R01AG011380, P30AG028377] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIA NIH HHS [P30 AG010124-17, AG06790, AG10124, AG05128, P30 AG028716-01, P30 AG028716, P30 AG028377, P30 AG010124, AG11380, 1P30 AG028716-01, P50 AG005128, AG028377, R01 AG011380-13, R01 AG011380, P50 AG005128-21, U01 AG006790-10] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) was funded by the National Institute on Aging in 1986 to develop standardized, validated measures for the assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The present report describes the measures that CERAD developed during its first decade and their continued use in their original and translated forms. These measures include clinical, neuropsychological, neuropathologic, and behavioral assessments of AD and also assessment of family history and parkinsonism in AD. An approach to evaluating neuroimages did not meet the standards desired. Further evaluations that could not be completed because of lack of funding (but where some materials are available) include evaluation of very severe AD and of service use and need by patient and caregiver. The information that was developed in the U.S. and abroad permits standardized assessment of AD in clinical practice, facilitates epidemiologic studies, and provides information valuable for individual and public health planning. CERAD materials and data remain available for those wishing to use them. (c) 2008 The Alzheimer's Association. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据