Home › Research › Prevention trials
Neuropsychological differentiation of progressive aphasic disorders
Jennifer M Harris, Jennifer A Saxon, Matthew Jones, Julie S Snowden, Jennifer C Thompson. Journal of neuropsychology, 2018-02-08
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The differentiation of subtypes of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) remains challenging. We aimed to identify optimum neuropsychological measures for characterizing PPA, to examine the relationship between behavioural change and subtypes of PPA and to determine whether characteristic profiles of language, working memory, and behavioural changes occur in PPA. Forty-seven patients with PPA and multi-domain Alzheimer's disease (AD) together with 19 age-matched controls underwent a large battery of working memory and language tests. We found that simple tasks of sentence ordering, narrative production, and buccofacial praxis were particularly useful in differentiating non-fluent/agrammatic variant PPA (nfvPPA) from other PPA subtypes, whereas a test of single word comprehension was useful in detecting semantic dementia (SD). No individual tests were discriminating for logopenic variant PPA (lvPPA) relative to nfvPPA. LvPPA and multidomain AD exhibited similar language profiles. A principal components analysis revealed that characteristic PPA profiles extended beyond the realms of language, in particular, the presence of apraxia in nfvPPA, behavioural changes in SD, and working memory deficits in lvPPA. These findings suggest that not all tests are equally discriminatory for PPA and highlight the importance of a test profile in differentiating PPA. These results also support the view that lvPPA is a focal form of AD and emphasize the difficulties classifying lvPPA.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Harris, J. M., Saxon, J. A., Jones, M., Snowden, J. S., & Thompson, J. C. (2019). Neuropsychological differentiation of progressive aphasic disorders. Journal of neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12149
Vancouver
Harris JM, Saxon JA, Jones M, Snowden JS, Thompson JC. Neuropsychological differentiation of progressive aphasic disorders. Journal of neuropsychology. 2019. doi:10.1111/jnp.12149. PMID: 29424041.
BibTeX
@article{harris2019-29424041,
author = {Harris, Jennifer M and Saxon, Jennifer A and Jones, Matthew and Snowden, Julie S and Thompson, Jennifer C},
title = {{Neuropsychological differentiation of progressive aphasic disorders}},
journal = {Journal of neuropsychology},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1111/jnp.12149},
pmid = {29424041},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12149}
}
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
- We found that simple tasks of sentence ordering, narrative production, and buccofacial praxis were particularly useful in differentiating non-fluent/agrammatic variant PPA (nfvPPA) from other PPA subtypes, whereas a test of single word comprehension was useful in detecting semantic dementia (SD).
- A principal components analysis revealed that characteristic PPA profiles extended beyond the realms of language, in particular, the presence of apraxia in nfvPPA, behavioural changes in SD, and working memory deficits in lvPPA.
- These findings suggest that not all tests are equally discriminatory for PPA and highlight the importance of a test profile in differentiating PPA.
- These results also support the view that lvPPA is a focal form of AD and emphasize the difficulties classifying lvPPA.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
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. 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neuropsychology) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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 | — / 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 29424041) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 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 Prevention trials
Also in Prevention trials
86 studies in the library are filed under Prevention trials with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Prevention trials hub.