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. Digital health tools

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Differentiation of logopenic (lvPPA) and nonfluent/agrammatic (nfvPPA) variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia is important yet remains challenging since it hinges on expert based evaluation of speech and language production. In this study acoustic measures of speech in conjunction with voxel-based morphometry were used to determine the success of the measures as an adjunct to diagnosis and to explore the neural basis of apraxia of speech in nfvPPA. Forty-one patients (21 lvPPA, 20 nfvPPA) were recruited from a consecutive sample with suspected frontotemporal dementia. Patients were diagnosed using the current gold-standard of expert perceptual judgment, based on presence/absence of particular speech features during speaking tasks. Seventeen healthy age-matched adults served as controls. MRI scans were available for 11 control and 37 PPA cases; 23 of the PPA cases underwent amyloid ligand PET imaging. Measures, corresponding to perceptual features of apraxia of speech, were periods of silence during reading and relative vowel duration and intensity in polysyllable word repetition. Discriminant function analyses revealed that a measure of relative vowel duration differentiated nfvPPA cases from both control and lvPPA cases (r(2) = 0.47) with 88% agreement with expert judgment of presence of apraxia of speech in nfvPPA cases. VBM analysis showed that relative vowel duration covaried with grey matter intensity in areas critical for speech motor planning and programming: precentral gyrus, supplementary motor area and inferior frontal gyrus bilaterally, only affected in the nfvPPA group. This bilateral involvement of frontal speech networks in nfvPPA potentially affects access to compensatory mechanisms involving right hemisphere homologues. Measures of silences during reading also discriminated the PPA and control groups, but did not increase predictive accuracy. Findings suggest that a measure of relative vowel duration from of a polysyllable word repetition task may be sufficient for detecting most cases of apraxia of speech and distinguishing between nfvPPA and lvPPA.

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

APA 7th

Ballard, K. J., Savage, S., Leyton, C. E., Vogel, A. P., Hornberger, M., & Hodges, JR. (2014). Logopenic and nonfluent variants of primary progressive aphasia are differentiated by acoustic measures of speech production. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089864

Vancouver

Ballard KJ, Savage S, Leyton CE, Vogel AP, Hornberger M, Hodges JR. Logopenic and nonfluent variants of primary progressive aphasia are differentiated by acoustic measures of speech production. PloS one. 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089864. PMID: 24587083.

BibTeX

@article{ballard2014-24587083,
  author  = {Ballard, K. J. and Savage, S. and Leyton, C. E. and Vogel, A. P. and Hornberger, M. and Hodges, JR.},
  title   = {{Logopenic and nonfluent variants of primary progressive aphasia are differentiated by acoustic measures of speech production}},
  journal = {PloS one},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1371/journal.pone.0089864},
  pmid    = {24587083},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089864}
}

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

This study found that a measure of relative vowel duration helped distinguish nonfluent from logopenic primary progressive aphasia, matching expert judgment in most cases. It is a diagnostic study of speech and does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 47/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 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 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 5 of 7; Citations per year 2 of 5; Impact for its field and year 3 of 6; Cited by studies here 2 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 47 of 100.47 of 100 points earned53 not earned

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

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one)
Journal's citation record 4 / 4 PLoS ONE: journal h-index 594 (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 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 5 / 7 Cited 103 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 2 / 5 7.4 citations a year over 14 year(s) since 2014
Impact for its field and year 3 / 6 Cited 7.0× 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 2 / 4 Cited 16 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author John R. Hodges: h-index 99 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 1 / 3 The University of Sydney: institution h-index 1,466 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24587083)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 47 / 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

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

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “bodies”

1,017 studies in the library carry the topic tag “bodies”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,017 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →