Home › Research › Drug development
Senile dementia of the neurofibrillary tangle type: a comparison with Alzheimer's disease
Yamada M, Itoh Y, Sodeyama N, Suematsu N, Otomo E, Matsushita M, Mizusawa H.. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 2001-03-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
A subset of senile dementia, 'senile dementia (SD) of the neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) type' (SD-NFT), is characterized by numerous NFTs in the hippocampal region and absence or scarcity of senile plaques throughout the brain. To elucidate the pathogenesis of SD-NFT in comparison with Alzheimer's disease (AD), we investigated the hippocampal lesions and analyzed the tau gene. The hippocampal regions from 5 patients with SD-NFT were neuropathologically evaluated in comparison with AD and nondemented control subjects. The tau gene was analyzed in 3 patients with SD-NFT. The densities of NFTs in the CA1/subiculum and entorhinal cortex of SD-NFT were significantly higher than those in AD. However, hippocampal atrophy, neuronal and synaptic loss, and astrocytic and microglial proliferation in SD-NFT were significantly mild compared with AD. There was no significant difference between SD-NFT and AD in the immunoreactivities of NFTs with different anti-tau antibodies. No mutation was found in the tau gene from the SD-NFT patients. Our results indicate that the neurodegenerative process with NFT formation of the hippocampal region in SD-NFT would be different from that in AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Yamada, M., Itoh, Y., Sodeyama, N., Suematsu, N., Otomo, E., Matsushita, M., et al. (2001). Senile dementia of the neurofibrillary tangle type: a comparison with Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. https://doi.org/10.1159/000051245
Vancouver
Yamada M, Itoh Y, Sodeyama N, Suematsu N, Otomo E, Matsushita M, et al. Senile dementia of the neurofibrillary tangle type: a comparison with Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. 2001. doi:10.1159/000051245. PMID: 11173884.
BibTeX
@article{yamada2001-11173884,
author = {Yamada, M. and Itoh, Y. and Sodeyama, N. and Suematsu, N. and Otomo, E. and Matsushita, M. and Mizusawa, H.},
title = {{Senile dementia of the neurofibrillary tangle type: a comparison with Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders},
year = {2001},
doi = {10.1159/000051245},
pmid = {11173884},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000051245}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The densities of NFTs in the CA1/subiculum and entorhinal cortex of SD-NFT were significantly higher than those in AD.
- However, hippocampal atrophy, neuronal and synaptic loss, and astrocytic and microglial proliferation in SD-NFT were significantly mild compared with AD.
- There was no significant difference between SD-NFT and AD in the immunoreactivities of NFTs with different anti-tau antibodies.
- Our results indicate that the neurodegenerative process with NFT formation of the hippocampal region in SD-NFT would be different from that in AD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders) |
| 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 | 2001 — 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 11173884) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.