This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

51/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Language decline is usually the fastest and predominant change in primary progressive aphasia (PPA). In Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is usually associated with global cognitive deficits. Decreased speech output, reduced conversational initiation, echolalia, and changes in the pragmatics of conversation are seen in the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (FTD-bv), however, the evolution of language disturbance in FTD-bv patients is rarely examined systematically with a standardized language battery. We aimed to longitudinally track the nature of language change in FTD-bv, PPA, and AD using a standardized measure of language functioning. We also explored the nature of language deficits between semantic dementia (SD) patients and the fluent subgroup of PPA patients. The Western Aphasia Battery was administered to 105 AD, 20 FTD-bv, 54 PPA, and 10 SD patients on 2 occasions with approximately 1 year between assessments. Ninety-nine of these patients were examined an additional year. FTD-bv and PPA patients showed a faster language decline than AD patients. The eventual overlap in language functioning in FTD-bv and PPA suggests that these syndromes belong to the same spectrum of disorders. In conclusion, longitudinal language assessment provides us with a unique understanding of the evolution and progression of language deterioration in various dementias.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Moderate

This is a follow-up (cohort) study. This longitudinal study found that language declined faster in frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia than in Alzheimer's disease. It describes how language changes over time and does not test any treatment, cure or prevention.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Blair, M., Marczinski, C. A., Davis-Faroque, N., & Kertesz, A. (2007). A longitudinal study of language decline in Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617707070269

Vancouver

Blair M, Marczinski CA, Davis-Faroque N, Kertesz A. A longitudinal study of language decline in Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2007. doi:10.1017/s1355617707070269. PMID: 17286881.

BibTeX

@article{blair2007-17286881,
  author  = {Blair, M. and Marczinski, C. A. and Davis-Faroque, N. and Kertesz, A.},
  title   = {{A longitudinal study of language decline in Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia}},
  journal = {Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS},
  year    = {2007},
  doi     = {10.1017/s1355617707070269},
  pmid    = {17286881},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617707070269}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is usually associated with global cognitive deficits.
The eventual overlap in language functioning in FTD-bv and PPA suggests that these syndromes belong to the same spectrum of disorders.
In conclusion, longitudinal language assessment provides us with a unique understanding of the evolution and progression of language deterioration in various dementias.

Why it matters

This longitudinal study found that language declined faster in frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia than in Alzheimer's disease. It describes how language changes over time and does not test any treatment, cure or prevention.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 51/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society: journal h-index 176 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 156 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	7.4 citations a year over 21 year(s) since 2007
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 6.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 7 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 18 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author ANDREW E. KERTESZ: h-index 95 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	University of Kentucky: institution h-index 824 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17286881)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	51 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

7 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Digital health tools from nearby years

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →