Anthony Shipley <astech@iinet.net.au> is alleged to have said:
>> I was diagnosed without autopsy. That was sometime last year -- and was using
>> some new scanning technology. I know that the standard reprise is still that AD
>> is only correctly diagnosed post mortem--but is that really so? Anybody have a
>> reputable response?
There are some indications that PET scans may provide a diagnosis on
living people. Last spring, DuPuisR@webtv.net posted this to the group:
> PET imaging is said to show beta-amyloid in the brain of someone with
> AD, according to a report by the journal Annals of Neurology.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> contribute to better understanding of how the disease progresses and
> identify it in people who show no symptoms.
and Darryl posted a link to an article about PET and Alzheimer's:
http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/aging/a/alzheimerspet_2.htm

Signature
Jo Ann Malina, make spamthis best to find my address
People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading.
-- Logan Pearsall Smith
Anthony Shipley - 26 Apr 2005 11:17 GMT
>and Darryl posted a link to an article about PET and Alzheimer's:
Yes, that was the test that allowed an A.D. diagnosis. PET had only become
available and I had mine in August 2004.
-
Mind control is being able to make all the voices in your head take turns.
Mod as a hooter!
Karen - 26 Apr 2005 13:18 GMT
My MIL received her diagnosis in 2000. Actually, she had received another
diagnosis in 1999 and couldn't remember having seen that neurologist. We
found that out while straightening out her business affairs.
It made me wonder if neurologists shouldn't ask their patients being seen
for suspected Alzheimer's for an additional family contact. One of those
notions that makes common sense but probably wouldn't fly in the current
patient privacy environment.
Karen
> >and Darryl posted a link to an article about PET and Alzheimer's:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Mod as a hooter!