Abstract
AbstractBackgroundThere is precedent in the AD field for confusion and dissonance due to the naming of clinical phenomena. Early on, Alzheimer's disease (AD) or Alzheimer's dementia could mean anyone with progressive dementia, and did not require the application of standardised criteria. As standardisation improved at the stage of dementia, the terms Mild Cognitive Impairment or Minimal Cognitive Impairment came into usage and the clinical conditions encompassed by these terms were variably named and defined in different nomenclature systems (eg., AAN, DSM, ICD) and required different criteria depending upon the definitions used by different academic working groups. A similar controversy now exists regarding the naming of individuals who have biological markers consistent with AD, but do not have any clinical symptoms or functional decline from baseline.MethodOther speakers in this symposium will review the history and advocate for particular approaches to describing individuals who have AD biological markers bur are cognitively unimpaired. This presentation will respond to those arguments and bring in additional external perspectives from experience as a clinician treating patients, as a researcher performing non‐interventional trials, and a drug developer.ResultThe implications of naming the condition preclinical AD versus individuals at risk for AD will be explicated for clinical practice, general research, and clinical trials.ConclusionTBD.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
