Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

A clinical perspective on the revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease

Nature Aging volume 4, pages 1029–1031 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

The 2024 update for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) criteria introduces a new biomarker classification system with blood biomarkers and revised staging. AD biomarkers are currently recommended for symptomatic patients within comprehensive clinical evaluations. High-performing p-tau217 assays offer cost-effective diagnostics, comparable to cerebrospinal fluid and PET. International clinical guidelines are being developed to enhance diagnostic and prognostic accuracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Biological staging versus clinical staging of AD.

References

  1. The National Institute on Aging and Reagan Institute Working Group on Diagnostic Criteria for the Neuropathological Assessment of Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurobiol. Aging 18, S1–S2 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hyman, B. T. et al. Alzheimers Dement. 8, 1–13 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hansson, O. Nat. Med. 27, 954–963 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jack, C. R. et al. Alzheimers Dement. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.13859 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Schindler, S. E. et al. Nat. Rev. Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-024-00977-5 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hansson, O., Blennow, K., Zetterberg, H. & Dage, J. Nat. Aging 3, 506–519 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Palmqvist, S. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 324, 772–781 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Barthelemy, N. R. et al. Nat. Med. 30, 1085–1095 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ossenkoppele, R. et al. Nat. Med. 28, 2381–2387 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Sims, J. R. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 330, 512–527 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Salvado, G. et al. Nat. Aging 4, 694–708 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Horie, K. et al. Nat. Med. 29, 1954–1963 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Johnson, K. A. et al. Alzheimers Dement. 9, E1–E16 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shaw, L. M. et al. Alzheimers Dement. 14, 1505–1521 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hansson, O. et al. Alzheimers Dement. 18, 2669–2686 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Oskar Hansson

  2. Memory Clinic, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden

    Oskar Hansson

  3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Clifford R. Jack Jr.

Authors
  1. Oskar Hansson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clifford R. Jack Jr.
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oskar Hansson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

O.H. has acquired research support (for the institution) from AVID Radiopharmaceuticals, Biogen, C2N Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, and Roche. In the past 2 years, he has received consultancy/speaker fees from Alzpath, BioArctic, Biogen, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fujirebio, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi and Siemens. C.R.J. declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansson, O., Jack, C.R. A clinical perspective on the revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Aging 4, 1029–1031 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-024-00675-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-024-00675-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing