Commentary on “Diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: Two decades of progress”

g K I was a participant in the 1985 Workshop on the Diagosis of Alzheimer Disease, which the author cites at the eginning of his article. I was also editor-in-chief of the rchives of Neurology and persuaded Dr. Khachaturian to ubmit the article to that journal as it summed up the nowledge of that day. My recollections of the workshop re now a little foggy, but I remember 2 themes that seemed o dominate the discussion. The first was the discussion among the neuropathologists bout which criteria were necessary for the diagnosis. It eemed to be a “numbers game” so that one argued for so any plaques or tangles per high-power field, and others ere adamant with different numbers. The second theme ad to do with the clinical diagnosis of cognitive impairent and dementia. The testing tools were not well develped at that point, as most tests were standardized on a uch younger sample. One of my colleagues pointed out at he time, that “normal” for an 85 year old was to be dead. As Dr. Khachaturian points out, we have come a long ay since that time with strides in testing, molecular biol-