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 40 out of 100. Vascular contributions

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Different neuropsychological populations implicate diverse cortical regions in semantic memory: semantic dementia (SD) is characterized by atrophy of the anterior temporal lobes whilst poor comprehension in stroke aphasia is associated with prefrontal or temporal-parietal infarcts. This study employed a case-series design to compare SD and comprehension-impaired stroke aphasic patients directly on the same battery of semantic tests. Although the two groups obtained broadly equivalent scores, they showed qualitatively different semantic deficits. The SD group showed strong correlations between different semantic tasks--regardless of input/output modality--and substantial consistency when a set of items was assessed several times. They were also highly sensitive to frequency/familiarity and made coordinate and superordinate semantic errors in picture naming. These findings support the notion that amodal semantic representations degrade in SD. The stroke aphasia group also showed multimodal deficits and consistency across different input modalities, but inconsistent performance on tasks requiring different types of semantic processing. They were insensitive to familiarity/frequency--instead, tests of semantic association were influenced by the ease with which relevant semantic relationships could be identified and distractors rejected. In addition, the aphasic patients made associative semantic errors in picture naming that SD patients did not make. The aphasic patients' picture naming performance improved considerably with phonemic cues suggesting that these patients retained knowledge that could not be accessed without contextual support. We propose that semantic cognition is supported by two interacting principal components: (i) a set of amodal representations (which progressively degrade in SD) and (ii) executive processes that help to direct and control semantic activation in a task-appropriate fashion (which are dysfunctional in comprehension-impaired stroke aphasic patients).

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 40/100
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 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 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. 23 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Total 40 of 100.23 of the 58 points we could judge = 40 of 100

Published in a leading specialty 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain : a journal 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 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 16815878)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 23 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total 40 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Jefferies, E., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2006). Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: a case-series comparison. Brain : a journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl153

Vancouver

Jefferies E, Lambon Ralph MA. Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: a case-series comparison. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2006. doi:10.1093/brain/awl153. PMID: 16815878.

BibTeX

@article{jefferies2006-16815878,
  author  = {Jefferies, E. and Lambon Ralph, M. A.},
  title   = {{Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: a case-series comparison}},
  journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
  year    = {2006},
  doi     = {10.1093/brain/awl153},
  pmid    = {16815878},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl153}
}

Related studies in Vascular contributions

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Vascular contributions

See all studies in Vascular contributions →