Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Validation of the neuropathologic criteria of the third consortium for dementia with Lewy bodies for prospectively diagnosed cases
Fujishiro H, Ferman TJ, Boeve BF, Smith GE, Graff-Radford NR, Uitti RJ, Wszolek ZK, Knopman DS et al.. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology, 2008-07-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
There is limited information on the validity of the pathologic criteria of the Third Consortium on Dementia with Lewy bodies (CDLB), and none are based on prospectively diagnosed cases. In this study, the core clinical features of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and the suggestive clinical feature of rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder were assessed using a battery of standardized clinical instruments in 76 patients with the clinical diagnosis of either DLB or Alzheimer disease. At autopsy, 29 patients had high-likelihood, 17 had intermediate-likelihood, and 6 had low-likelihood DLB pathology. The frequency of core clinical features and the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of probable DLB were significantly greater in high-likelihood than in low-likelihood cases. This is consistent with the concept that the DLB clinical syndrome is directly related to Lewy body pathology and inversely related to Alzheimer pathology. Thus, the Third Consortium on DLB neuropathologic criteria scheme performed reasonably well and are useful for estimating the likelihood of the premortem DLB syndrome based on postmortem findings. In view of differences in the frequency of clinically probable DLB in cases with Braak neurofibrillary tangle stages V (90%) and VI (20%) and diffuse cortical Lewy bodies, a possible modification of the scheme is to consider cases with neurofibrillary tangle stage VI to be low-likelihood DLB.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Fujishiro, H., Ferman, T. J., Boeve, B. F., Smith, G. E., Graff-Radford, N. R., Uitti, R. J., et al. (2008). Validation of the neuropathologic criteria of the third consortium for dementia with Lewy bodies for prospectively diagnosed cases. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology. https://doi.org/10.1097/nen.0b013e31817d7a1d
Vancouver
Fujishiro H, Ferman TJ, Boeve BF, Smith GE, Graff-Radford NR, Uitti RJ, et al. Validation of the neuropathologic criteria of the third consortium for dementia with Lewy bodies for prospectively diagnosed cases. Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology. 2008. doi:10.1097/nen.0b013e31817d7a1d. PMID: 18596548.
BibTeX
@article{fujishiro2008-18596548,
author = {Fujishiro, H. and Ferman, T. J. and Boeve, B. F. and Smith, G. E. and Graff-Radford, N. R. and Uitti, R. J. and Wszolek, Z. K. and Knopman, D. S. and others},
title = {{Validation of the neuropathologic criteria of the third consortium for dementia with Lewy bodies for prospectively diagnosed cases}},
journal = {Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1097/nen.0b013e31817d7a1d},
pmid = {18596548},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/nen.0b013e31817d7a1d}
}
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
- The frequency of core clinical features and the accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of probable DLB were significantly greater in high-likelihood than in low-likelihood cases.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Participants76
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neuropathology and experimental 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 | 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 76 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) |
| 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 18596548) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.
Related studies in Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “diagnosed”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diagnosed”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.