Home › Research › Risk factors
Volumetric Integrity of Frontotemporal and Perisylvian Regions for Predicting Behavioral and Language Impairment in Behavioral FTD: A Structural MRI Study
Zare AH, Kiani I, Zeinalzadeh L, Taghilou A, Mirsepasi Z, Aghamollaii V.. medRxiv, 2026-10-05
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is clinically defined by progressive changes in personality, executive function, and language, yet the structural neural correlates of symptom severity remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the association between clinical findings and neuroimaging biomarkers. Methods We included 87 patients with bvFTD. Clinical functioning was covering behavior and language. Spearman’s rank correlations were used to assess univariate associations, and Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple comparisons. Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on regional volumes, and multivariable logistic regression was used to model high behavioral impairment (FBI total ≥30), adjusting for age, sex, and education. Results No individual regional volume was significantly correlated with clinical scores after Bonferroni correction (all adjusted p>0.05), and PCA-derived imaging components failed to predict behavioral severity in multivariable models. Age emerged as the only significant predictor (OR=1.11 per year; p=0.009). Model discrimination was modest (AUC=0.735) and did not improve with the inclusion of imaging features (p=0.453 vs. demographics-only model). Conclusions In this bvFTD cohort, structural volumes of key frontotemporal and perisylvian regions did not predict behavioral or language impairments after correction for multiple comparisons. These findings show the limitations of regional volumetric analysis in isolation and stress the need for network-based, multimodal, and longitudinal approaches.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Zare, A. H., Kiani, I., Zeinalzadeh, L., Taghilou, A., Mirsepasi, Z., & Aghamollaii, V. (2026). Volumetric Integrity of Frontotemporal and Perisylvian Regions for Predicting Behavioral and Language Impairment in Behavioral FTD: A Structural MRI Study. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.30.26364390
Vancouver
Zare AH, Kiani I, Zeinalzadeh L, Taghilou A, Mirsepasi Z, Aghamollaii V. Volumetric Integrity of Frontotemporal and Perisylvian Regions for Predicting Behavioral and Language Impairment in Behavioral FTD: A Structural MRI Study. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.30.26364390.
BibTeX
@article{zare2026-a2bd1671,
author = {Zare, A. H. and Kiani, I. and Zeinalzadeh, L. and Taghilou, A. and Mirsepasi, Z. and Aghamollaii, V.},
title = {{Volumetric Integrity of Frontotemporal and Perisylvian Regions for Predicting Behavioral and Language Impairment in Behavioral FTD: A Structural MRI Study}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.30.26364390},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.30.26364390}
}
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
- Results No individual regional volume was significantly correlated with clinical scores after Bonferroni correction (all adjusted p>0.05), and PCA-derived imaging components failed to predict behavioral severity in multivariable models.
- Age emerged as the only significant predictor (OR=1.11 per year; p=0.009).
- These findings show the limitations of regional volumetric analysis in isolation and stress the need for network-based, multimodal, and longitudinal approaches.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants87
- Effect sizeOR=1.11; AUC=0.735
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 47 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 29 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 87 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 29 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 Risk factors
Also tagged “diffusion”
172 studies in the library carry the topic tag “diffusion”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 172 tagged studies.