Home › Research › Digital health tools
Classification and pathology of primary progressive aphasia
Jennifer Harris, Claire Gall, J. C. Thompson, Anna M. T. Richardson, D. Neary, Daniel du Plessis, Piyali Pal, David M. A. Mann et al.. Neurology, 2013-10-19
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
The final cohort comprised 52 patients, 30 of whom met basic PPA criteria. Twenty-five patients met one of the 3 PPA classifications (13 logopenic, 8 nonfluent/agrammatic, and 4 semantic). Five patients did not meet the criteria for any of the PPA variants. All patients who met semantic variant PPA and 75% of patients who met nonfluent/agrammatic variant PPA classifications had frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum pathology. Pathologies were heterogeneous in patients who met logopenic variant PPA criteria (46% Alzheimer disease [AD], 8% AD mixed with dementia with Lewy bodies, 23% frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and 23% other). The 2011 PPA recommendations classify a large proportion of patients who meet basic PPA criteria. However, some patients had aphasic syndromes that could not be classified, suggesting that the 2011 recommendations do not cover the full range of PPA variants. Classification of semantic variant PPA provides a good prediction of underlying pathology. Classification of logopenic variant does not successfully differentiate PPA due to AD from PPA due to other pathologies. AD= : Alzheimer disease; AOS= : apraxia of speech; CBD= : corticobasal degeneration; C9orf72 = : chromosome 9 open reading frame 72; FTLD= : frontotemporal lobar degeneration; GRN = : progranulin; lvPPA= : logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia; MAPT = : microtubule-associated protein tau; nfvPPA= : nonfluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia; PPA= : primary progressive aphasia; svPPA= : semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia; TDP-43= : transactive response DNA-binding protein 43
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Harris, J., Gall, C., Thompson, J. C., Richardson, A. M. T., Neary, D., du Plessis, D., et al. (2013). Classification and pathology of primary progressive aphasia. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000436070.28137.7b
Vancouver
Harris J, Gall C, Thompson JC, Richardson AMT, Neary D, du Plessis D, et al. Classification and pathology of primary progressive aphasia. Neurology. 2013. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000436070.28137.7b. PMID: 24142474.
BibTeX
@article{harris2013-24142474,
author = {Harris, Jennifer and Gall, Claire and Thompson, J. C. and Richardson, Anna M. T. and Neary, D. and du Plessis, Daniel and Pal, Piyali and Mann, David M. A. and others},
title = {{Classification and pathology of primary progressive aphasia}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1212/01.wnl.0000436070.28137.7b},
pmid = {24142474},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000436070.28137.7b}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The final cohort comprised 52 patients, 30 of whom met basic PPA criteria.
- Twenty-five patients met one of the 3 PPA classifications (13 logopenic, 8 nonfluent/agrammatic, and 4 semantic).
- Five patients did not meet the criteria for any of the PPA variants.
- All patients who met semantic variant PPA and 75% of patients who met nonfluent/agrammatic variant PPA classifications had frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum pathology.
- Pathologies were heterogeneous in patients who met logopenic variant PPA criteria (46% Alzheimer disease [AD], 8% AD mixed with dementia with Lewy bodies, 23% frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and 23% other).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants52
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 52 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) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24142474) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Digital health tools
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.