Asian Science Citation Index is committed to provide an authoritative, trusted and significant information by the coverage of the most important and influential journals to meet the needs of the global scientific community.  
ASCI Database
308-Lasani Town,
Sargodha Road,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-41-8815544
Contact Via Web
Suggest a Journal
Articles by Guy M. McKhann
Total Records ( 3 ) for Guy M. McKhann
  Clifford R. Jack , Marilyn S. Albert , David S. Knopman , Guy M. McKhann , Reisa A. Sperling , Maria C. Carrillo , Bill Thies and Creighton H. Phelps
  Background Criteria for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) were established in 1984. A broad consensus now exists that these criteria should be revised to incorporate state-of-the-art scientific knowledge. Methods The National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer's Association sponsored a series of advisory round table meetings in 2009 whose purpose was to establish a process for revising diagnostic and research criteria for AD. The recommendation from these advisory meetings was that three separate work groups should be formed with each assigned the task of formulating diagnostic criteria for one phase of the disease: the dementia phase; the symptomatic, pre-dementia phase; and the asymptomatic, preclinical phase of AD. Results Two notable differences from the AD criteria published in 1984 are incorporation of biomarkers of the underlying disease state and formalization of different stages of disease in the diagnostic criteria. There was a broad consensus within all three workgroups that much additional work is needed to validate the application of biomarkers for diagnostic purposes. In the revised NIA-Alzheimer's Association criteria, a semantic and conceptual distinction is made between AD pathophysiological processes and clinically observable syndromes that result, whereas this distinction was blurred in the 1984 criteria. Conclusions The new criteria for AD are presented in three documents. The core clinical criteria of the recommendations regarding AD dementia and MCI due to AD are intended to guide diagnosis in the clinical setting. However, the recommendations of the preclinical AD workgroup are intended purely for research purposes.
  Guy M. McKhann , David S. Knopman , Howard Chertkow , Howard Chertkow , Clifford R. Jack , Claudia H. Kawas , William E. Klunk , Walter J. Koroshetz , Jennifer J. Manly , Richard Mayeux , Richard C. Mohs , John C. Morris , Martin N. Rossor , Philip Scheltens , Maria C. Carrillo , Bill Thies , Sandra Weintraub and Creighton H. Phelps
  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.
  Guy M. McKhann , Ola A. Selnes , Maura A. Grega , Maryanne M. Bailey , Luu D. Pham , William A. Baumgartner and Scott L. Zeger

Background:Self-reported cognitive and memory complaints after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) operations are common. Several studies have attempted to quantify the incidence of such complaints and to examine the relationship between subjective and objective cognitive functioning, but the etiology and longitudinal course of these self-reports remain unclear.

Methods:Measures of subjective memory complaints were compared in two groups: 220 CABG patients and 92 nonsurgical cardiac patients at 3 months, and 1, 3, and 6 years. At 6 years, additional measures were used to quantify memory self-assessment. The frequency of subjective complaints at each time point was determined, and associations with objective cognitive performance as well as depression were examined.

Results:At early (3-month or 1-year) follow-up, subjective memory complaints were reported more often by the CABG than the nonsurgical group (45.5% vs 17.0%, p < 0.0001). By 6 years, the frequency of complaints was similar (52%) in both groups. Subjective memory ratings were significantly correlated with performance on several memory tests at 6 years. This relationship was not confounded by depression.

Conclusions:Subjective memory complaints are more frequent early in follow-up in patients undergoing CABG than in controls, but are similar by 6 years. The increase in subjective complaints over time may be related to progression of underlying cerebrovascular disease. Unlike previous studies, we found that subjective memory assessments were correlated with objective performance on several memory tests. Although subjective memory complaints are more common in patients with depression, they cannot be explained by depression alone.

Copyright   |   Desclaimer   |    Privacy Policy   |   Browsers   |   Accessibility