Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

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

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Speech and language assessment in 30 patients with dementia of the Alzheimer type and in 70 normal controls revealed that all Alzheimer patients were aphasic. Throughout most of the course, the language disorder resembled transcortical sensory aphasia, and increasing language impairment correlated with increasing severity of dementia. Aphasia was present regardless of age of onset or family history of dementia. Aphasia is an important diagnostic criterion of dementia of the Alzheimer type.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

The record lists 30 participants. In this small study of 30 patients, all those with dementia of the Alzheimer type showed language problems (aphasia), and the problems worsened as dementia became more severe. The authors conclude that aphasia is an important diagnostic criterion for this type of dementia.

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

Cummings, J. L., Benson, F., Hill, M. A., & Read, S. (1985). Aphasia in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.35.3.394

Vancouver

Cummings JL, Benson F, Hill MA, Read S. Aphasia in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Neurology. 1985. doi:10.1212/wnl.35.3.394. PMID: 3974897.

BibTeX

@article{cummings1985-3974897,
  author  = {Cummings, J. L. and Benson, F. and Hill, M. A. and Read, S.},
  title   = {{Aphasia in dementia of the Alzheimer type}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {1985},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.35.3.394},
  pmid    = {3974897},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.35.3.394}
}

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.

Key findings

Why it matters

In this small study of 30 patients, all those with dementia of the Alzheimer type showed language problems (aphasia), and the problems worsened as dementia became more severe. The authors conclude that aphasia is an important diagnostic criterion for this type of dementia.

Study details

How this study scored 51/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record 4 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 6 of 7; Citations per year 2 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 of 6; Cited by studies here 2 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multicenter collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 49 of the 96 points it could be judged on, which is 51 of 100. Total 51 of 100.49 of the 96 points we could judge = 51 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 49 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 51 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology)
Journal's citation record 4 / 4 Neurology: journal h-index 525 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 1985 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 30 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 6 / 7 Cited 340 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 2 / 5 7.9 citations a year over 43 year(s) since 1985
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 17.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 2 / 6 Cited by 6 other studies in this library
Still being cited 1 / 4 Cited 14 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University of California, Los Angeles: institution h-index 1,923 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 3974897)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 49 / 96 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 49 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 51 out of 100.
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.

Later studies that cite this one

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

Related studies in Digital health tools from nearby years

Also in Digital health tools

178 studies in the library are filed under Digital health tools with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Digital health tools hub.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →