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.

54/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 54 out of 100. Biomarkers

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Background and objectives The aims of this work were to compare rates of longitudinal change in neurologic and neuropsychological test performance between the logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) variants of atypical Alzheimer disease (AD) and to use unbiased principal component analysis to assess heterogeneity in patterns of change and relationships to demographics and concurrent brain atrophy. Methods Patients with PCA or LPA who were positive for amyloid and tau AD biomarkers and had undergone serial neurologic and neuropsychological assessments and structural MRI were identified. Rates of change in 13 clinical measures were compared between groups in a case-control design, and principal component analysis was used to assess patterns of clinical change unbiased by clinical phenotype. Components were correlated with rates of regional brain atrophy with tensor-based morphometry. Results Twenty-eight patients with PCA and 27 patients with LPA were identified. Those with LPA showed worse baseline performance and faster rates of decline in naming, repetition, and working memory, as well as faster rates of decline in verbal episodic memory, compared to those with PCA. Conversely, patients with PCA showed worse baseline performance in tests of visuospatial and perceptual function and on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale and faster rates of decline in visuoperceptual function compared to those with LPA. Principal component analysis showed that patterns of clinical decline were highly heterogeneous across the cohort, with 10 principal components required to explain >90% of the variance. The first principal component reflected overall severity, with higher scores in LPA than PCA reflecting faster decline in LPA, and was related to left temporoparietal atrophy. The second and third principal components were not related to clinical phenotype but showed some relationship to regional atrophy. No relationships were identified between the principal components and age, sex, disease duration, amyloid PET findings, or apolipoprotein genotype. Discussion Longitudinal patterns of clinical decline differ between LPA and PCA but are heterogeneous and related to different patterns of topographic spread. PCA is associated with a more slowly progressive course than LPA.

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

APA 7th

Whitwell, J. L., Martin, P. R., Graff-Radford, J., Machulda, M. M., Sintini, I., Buciuc, M., et al. (2022). Investigating Heterogeneity and Neuroanatomic Correlates of Longitudinal Clinical Decline in Atypical Alzheimer Disease. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000200336

Vancouver

Whitwell JL, Martin PR, Graff-Radford J, Machulda MM, Sintini I, Buciuc M, et al. Investigating Heterogeneity and Neuroanatomic Correlates of Longitudinal Clinical Decline in Atypical Alzheimer Disease. Neurology. 2022. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000200336. PMID: 35483899.

BibTeX

@article{whitwell2022-35483899,
  author  = {Whitwell, J. L. and Martin, P. R. and Graff-Radford, J. and Machulda, M. M. and Sintini, I. and Buciuc, M. and Senjem, M. L. and Schwarz, C. G. and others},
  title   = {{Investigating Heterogeneity and Neuroanatomic Correlates of Longitudinal Clinical Decline in Atypical Alzheimer Disease}},
  journal = {Neurology},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000200336},
  pmid    = {35483899},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000200336}
}

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

Results Twenty-eight patients with PCA and 27 patients with LPA were identified.
Those with LPA showed worse baseline performance and faster rates of decline in naming, repetition, and working memory, as well as faster rates of decline in verbal episodic memory, compared to those with PCA.
Conversely, patients with PCA showed worse baseline performance in tests of visuospatial and perceptual function and on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale and faster rates of decline in visuoperceptual function compared to those with LPA.
Principal component analysis showed that patterns of clinical decline were highly heterogeneous across the cohort, with 10 principal components required to explain >90% of the variance.
The first principal component reflected overall severity, with higher scores in LPA than PCA reflecting faster decline in LPA, and was related to left temporoparietal atrophy.

Why it matters

In this case-control study of 28 patients with posterior cortical atrophy and 27 with logopenic progressive aphasia, the two atypical Alzheimer disease variants showed different patterns and rates of clinical decline linked to regional brain atrophy. This describes how these variants progress and does not test a treatment or cure.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →

Study details

Study designcase-control study
Participants27
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 54/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / 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 52 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 54 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
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	6 / 12	A case-control study
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	3 / 5	2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	27 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	3 / 7	Cited 21 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	3.5 citations a year over 6 year(s) since 2022
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 2.8× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 10 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	Mayo Clinic: institution h-index 1,606 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	1 / 3	OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35483899)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	52 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 52 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 54 out of 100.
Total	54 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

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.

Related studies in Biomarkers

Also in Biomarkers

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

Similar studies

More on Biomarkers

See all studies in Biomarkers →