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 46 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Language batteries used to assess the skills of elderly individuals, such as naming and semantic verbal fluency, present some limitations in differentiating healthy controls from patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (a-MCI). Deficits in narrative discourse occur early in dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD), and the narrative discourse abilities of a-MCI patients are poorly documented. The present study sought to propose and evaluate parameters for investigating narrative discourse in these populations. After a pilot study of 30 healthy subjects who served as a preliminary investigation of macro- and micro-linguistic aspects, 77 individuals (patients with AD and a-MCI and a control group) were evaluated. The experimental task required the participants to narrate a story based on a sequence of actions visually presented. The Control and AD groups differed in all parameters except narrative time and the total number of words recalled. The a-MCI group displayed mild discursive difficulties that were characterized as an intermediate stage between the Control and AD groups' performances. The a-MCI and Control groups differed from the AD group with respect to global coherence, discourse type and referential cohesion. The a-MCI and AD groups were similar to one another but differed from the Control group with respect to the type of words recalled, the repetition of words in the same sentence, the narrative structure and the inclusion of irrelevant propositions in the narrative. The narrative parameter that best distinguished the three groups was the speech effectiveness index. The proposed task was able to reveal differences between healthy controls and groups with cognitive decline. According to our findings, patients with a-MCI already present narrative deficits that are characterized by mild discursive difficulties that are less severe than those found in patients with AD.

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

APA 7th

Drummond, C., Coutinho, G., Fonseca, R. P., Assunção, N., Teldeschi, A., de Oliveira-Souza, R., et al. (2015). Deficits in narrative discourse elicited by visual stimuli are already present in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00096

Vancouver

Drummond C, Coutinho G, Fonseca RP, Assunção N, Teldeschi A, de Oliveira-Souza R, et al. Deficits in narrative discourse elicited by visual stimuli are already present in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Frontiers in aging neuroscience. 2015. doi:10.3389/fnagi.2015.00096. PMID: 26074814.

BibTeX

@article{drummond2015-26074814,
  author  = {Drummond, C. and Coutinho, G. and Fonseca, R. P. and Assunção, N. and Teldeschi, A. and de Oliveira-Souza, R. and Moll, J. and Tovar-Moll, F. and others},
  title   = {{Deficits in narrative discourse elicited by visual stimuli are already present in patients with mild cognitive impairment}},
  journal = {Frontiers in aging neuroscience},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.3389/fnagi.2015.00096},
  pmid    = {26074814},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00096}
}

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

Why it matters

Patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment already show mild narrative discourse deficits that are intermediate between healthy controls and those with Alzheimer's disease. This finding is about early detection of language changes and does not address treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 46/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 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; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 5 of 7; Citations per year 3 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 1 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 0 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 46 of 100.46 of 100 points earned54 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in aging neuroscience)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience: journal h-index 174 (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 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 77 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 5 / 7 Cited 144 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 3 / 5 11.1 citations a year over 13 year(s) since 2015
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 5.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 1 / 6 Cited by 2 other studies in this library
Still being cited 2 / 4 Cited 39 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 2 / 4 Last-listed author Paulo Mattos: h-index 36 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 0 / 3 Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro: institution h-index 617 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26074814)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 46 / 100 —

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

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

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

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “examination”

840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →