Slashdot Mirror
Promising Blood Test for Alzheimer's
The online edition of the British journal Nature Medicine has a study of a blood test for Alzheimer's disease, developed at Stanford. The test lights up if 18 specific molecules are present in a blood sample. Using samples of stored blood, the test proved 90% accurate in identifying people who had been diagnosed with the disease by other methods. It was also 87% accurate in distinguishing samples from people who do not have Alzheimer's but exhibit some other form of dementia. The numbers of samples involved were small — SFGate's writeup has some details. The Mercury News's article says the test's developers want to begin selling it to laboratories in 2008, for which FDA approval would not be required. They hope to get FDA approval for general use by 2009.
Would the pun "You have alzheimers but you just don't know it yet!" be considered poor taste in this context?
Monstar L
I always ask my dad "Do you remember the last time you were tested for Alzheimer's?"
It pisses him off...
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
...about Alzheimers is all the new interesting stories on /. every time I refresh.
(sadly, the same cannot be said about the goatse comments)
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
As with all "untreatable" diseases it should be left up to the individual. I can only speak for myself but if I started to have some symptoms I think I would like to know so I could help those close to me when they start to suffer from my disease. As a suffer from Alzheimers I'd wish them to make it as well for me as they can but without putting an extremly heavy burden on them. My "self" would be going and I'd wish them to remember me as my full self, if "I" am not there then they should do as well as they can but I wouldn't want them sacrifice their life for what's left of mine.
Interesting question. Should we require elected politicians to meet certain levels of health, and mental capacity? I think that might be a good thing, but it could set a dangerous president for the rest of society. I certainly wouldn't want to be denied a job due to my Alzheimer's, heart disease, or cancer risk factors.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I would (not very educatedly) guess that the benefit of such a test is not in verifying that a patient has Alzheimer's but rather they don't. By ruling out Alzheimer's, doctors can focus on other, possibly curable, mental diseases. It would be terrible if someone degenerates into a condition common to a person suffering Alzheimer's, when really they have something different altogether that can be treated (medicine, surgery, etc). But what do I know, I'm no brain-surgeon!
Its not untreatable, and there are a lot of promising new therapies coming online.
However, right here and now, if you know you are going to get the disease in the future, you can:
And cholinesterase blocker drugs will improve cognition in the face of a falling neuron count - improving function although not modifying the disease itself.
Whilst there are many ethical questions to screening tests for diseases you cannot treat, alzheimers does not fit into that category. We all die of something. Its all about getting the most quality time on the planet. Having a test for this would be a good thing.
Please also note that there are already tests that can identify risk of alzheimers, such as for the ApoE epsilon 4 genotype, so the concept of a screening test that helps separate types of demetia already exists.
For a concise reference, see Wikipedia
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Can we require candidates for public office to take the test?
More to the point - can your medical insurer make you take it.
OK, there have been other tests (including one involving spinal fluid, ouch) that have been 90+% accurate (or were initially purported to be in manufacturer-sponsored studies).
It doesn't matter.
Dementia has lots of possible causes, and there's really no way to tell most of them apart from just seeing the symptoms. That means that a dementia screening is required, and when done by an appropriate specialist (usually a neurologist, neuropsychiatrist, or geriatric psychiatrist), it's roughly 90% accurate, PLUS you have either ruled out or discovered other more easily identifiable and sometimes reversible causes of dementia, which is important for what should be obvious reasons. That is why none of these tests have replaced the standard screening, although the companies that have produced them have spent millions trying to market them as suitable replacements. The accepted diagnostic standards haven't changed much in 20 years, really, the link given is still the gold standard or still a large part of the basis for more current standards for specialists or generalists.
The only big revolution is that some progress is being made on the metabolic processes that cause the plaques and tangles to appear in the brain, which might allow for preventative treatment, but it would probably need to begin in your 20's. Elan Pharmaceuticals was working on an antibody that could clear plaques from the brain, but it was unclear how much this would help those who were already suffering from AD, as brain cells will eventually start dying, although if this approach proves successful the disease may certainly be stopped and the damage kept from progressing, but it can't reverse existing damage.
And yes, this is my field. Here's some recommended reading for those looking for more info.
[command INSERTWITTYQUIP failed: insufficient wit]
nothing I can realistically do to avoid a rather grim fate.
Actually, there are treatments available to at least delay Alzheimer's disease. They're in the same situation as AIDs medications a decade ago - not much good for reversing the disease, but capable of delaying or stopping it's progress for years.
Give it another decade and we might even be able to reverse it's progress - memories not retained will still be lost, but the functionality, and maybe some past memory, be restored.
I don't know about you, but at this time I'd much rather know, so I could get on the drugs now. It's especially critical for me - I have a family history of Alzheimer's.
Maybe they'll find a cure before it gets bad. Maybe I'll die of something else. But the drugs, especially given early, can delay the disease by decades.
I don't read AC A human right
Yours is a intelligent, compassionate and humane response. Mine was selfish and shortsighted. I'm still not sure I'd be able to rise to the standards you set if I ever actually suspected I was in the early stages of dimensia.
Don't worry, we already have one of these in office in the US.
How about being denied a job for which the given ailment would prevent you from doing the job? That would be the point of having mental-related standards for people in office, so that they could do their job (and not the one of pandering to the lobbyists).
However, the FDA does not regulate: Advertsising, Alcohol (woot), Consumer Products, Heatlh Insurance, Drugs of Abuse, Meat and Poultry (USDA), Pesticides, Restaurants, and Water