prob. AD as defined at the moment is a set of "criteria" based on a number of things like time scales, and also some specific cognitive measures. I've always found things to be a little vague and there's probably a whole spectrum of different biological entities that can do these sort of things to you.
You can throw PETs, CSF tests etc at it but I never really have a high level of confidence calling it.
Basically people lose memory and certain cognitive functions...but anything could really do it.
At the moment the hodgepodge way I fudge it is: if it is a clearly progressive syndrome year over year, with an amnestic memory syndrome (vs. poor attentional state/registration), with language/naming involvement, and evidence of visuospatial neglect/apraxias, I tell them it may "likely" be AD. Otherwise I can't say if it is AD vs. vascular dementia.
There is a paper looking at accuracy of how we call things vs. post-mortem, and it is about 50/50 eyeroll. Sad but this is the limitation of science vs. mother nature at this state in time.
You can throw PETs, CSF tests etc at it but I never really have a high level of confidence calling it.
Basically people lose memory and certain cognitive functions...but anything could really do it.
At the moment the hodgepodge way I fudge it is: if it is a clearly progressive syndrome year over year, with an amnestic memory syndrome (vs. poor attentional state/registration), with language/naming involvement, and evidence of visuospatial neglect/apraxias, I tell them it may "likely" be AD. Otherwise I can't say if it is AD vs. vascular dementia.
There is a paper looking at accuracy of how we call things vs. post-mortem, and it is about 50/50 eyeroll. Sad but this is the limitation of science vs. mother nature at this state in time.