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 47 out of 100. Disease mechanisms

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective The clinical and neuropathological categorization of patients presenting with progressive aphasia is an area of controversy. This study aimed to characterize a large group of progressive aphasic patients from a single center (n = 38), first clinically by case note review, and then pathologically. Methods Hierarchical cluster analysis of the cases according to their clinical language deficits was used to establish an unbiased, data-driven classification. Results This analysis revealed two groups of cases corresponding to the syndromes of progressive nonfluent aphasia (n = 23) and semantic dementia (n = 15). Postmortem analysis showed a majority in both groups of pathologies from the spectrum of frontotemporal lobar degeneration: the most frequent were non-Alzheimer's disease (AD) tauopathy in the nonfluent cases (10 of 23) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive, tau-negative inclusions in the fluent cases (8 of 15). Despite rigorous exclusion of cases with clinically significant memory deficits or other cognitive impairments, the pathology of AD was present in approximately one third of each group (overall 12 of 38), although often with an atypical neuroanatomical distribution. Interpretation Progressive aphasia is best seen as a composite of two conditions, on both clinical and pathological levels: progressive nonfluent aphasia and semantic dementia.

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

APA 7th

Knibb, J. A., Xuereb, J. H., Patterson, K., & Hodges, JR. (2006). Clinical and pathological characterization of progressive aphasia. Annals of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20700

Vancouver

Knibb JA, Xuereb JH, Patterson K, Hodges JR. Clinical and pathological characterization of progressive aphasia. Annals of neurology. 2006. doi:10.1002/ana.20700. PMID: 16374817.

BibTeX

@article{knibb2006-16374817,
  author  = {Knibb, J. A. and Xuereb, J. H. and Patterson, K. and Hodges, JR.},
  title   = {{Clinical and pathological characterization of progressive aphasia}},
  journal = {Annals of neurology},
  year    = {2006},
  doi     = {10.1002/ana.20700},
  pmid    = {16374817},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20700}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 47/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; 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; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 27 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 47 of 100. Total 47 of 100.27 of the 58 points we could judge = 47 of 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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Annals of 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 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 2006 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 38 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 16374817)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 27 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100.
Total 47 / 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 Disease mechanisms

Also in Disease mechanisms

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

Similar studies

More on Disease mechanisms

See all studies in Disease mechanisms →