Article Text
Abstract
The neuropsychiatrist Arnold Pick (1851–1924) lent his name to a disease, but in his centenary year, it is timely to ask whether this and the many other eponyms that populate neurology are more help than hindrance. Here, I survey some neurological eponyms, propose criteria for judging their helpfulness (and unhelpfulness) and consider their future prospects in our increasingly mechanistic, contemporary neurological practice.
- MEDICINE
- DEMENTIA
- CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Footnotes
Contributors JDW is the sole author and guarantor.
Funding This study was funded by Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Alzheimer’s Research UK, Alzheimer’s Society, University College London Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed by Martin Turner, Oxford, UK.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Presenile dementia syndromes: an update on taxonomy and diagnosis
- Both total and phosphorylated tau are increased in Alzheimer's disease
- Neurological syndromes which can be mistaken for psychiatric conditions
- Structural imaging in the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: problems and tools
- Evaluation of the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria in the differentiation of Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia
- Neuropathology and emerging biomarkers in corticobasal syndrome
- Clinical, genetic and pathological heterogeneity of frontotemporal dementia: a review
- Biomarkers in dementia: clinical utility and new directions
- Fluid biomarkers in frontotemporal dementia: past, present and future
- Parkinson's disease: chameleons and mimics