ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2019
The Use of Biomarkers and Genetic Screening to Diagnose Frontotemporal Dementia: Evidence and Clinical Implications.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review.Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review: Genetic, Neuroimaging, and Fluids Biomarkers for Frontotemporal Dementia Across Latin America Countries.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Frontotemporal Dementia, Current Diagnosis and Treatment Emphasis on Natural Products: A Review.Current aging science · 2026Review
- Haploinsufficiency and Alzheimer's Disease: The Possible Pathogenic and Protective Genetic Factors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- A Patient with Corticobasal Syndrome and Progressive Non-Fluent Aphasia (CBS-PNFA), with Variants inGenes · 2022Article
- New developments of biofluid-based biomarkers for routine diagnosis and disease trajectories in frontotemporal dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2022Review
- 18F-MK-6240 tau-PET in genetic frontotemporal dementia.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2022Article
- Emerging genetic complexity and rare genetic variants in neurodegenerative brain diseases.Genome medicine · 2021Review
- Social Cognition and Behavioral Assessments Improve the Diagnosis of Behavioral Variant of Frontotemporal Dementia in Older Peruvians With Low Educational Levels.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Divergent Thinking Abilities in Frontotemporal Dementia: A Mini-Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- Network analysis of the progranulin-deficient mouse brain proteome reveals pathogenic mechanisms shared in human frontotemporal dementia caused by GRN mutations.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2020Article
- Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Common Dementias-Current Status and Perspectives.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the wide range of neurodegenerative brain diseases, the differential diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) frequently poses a challenge. Often, signs and symptoms are not characteristic of the disease and may instead reflect atypical presentations. Consequently, the use of disease biomarkers is of importance to correctly identify the patients. Here, we describe how neuropsychological characteristics, neuroimaging and neurochemical biomarkers and screening for causal gene mutations can be used to differentiate FTD from other neurodegenerative diseases as well as to distinguish between FTD subtypes. Summarizing current evidence, we propose a stepwise approach in the diagnostic evaluation. Clinical consensus criteria that take into account a full neuropsychological examination have relatively good accuracy (sensitivity [se] 75-95%, specificity [sp] 82-95%) to diagnose FTD, although misdiagnosis (mostly AD) is common. Structural brain MRI (se 70-94%, sp 89-99%) and FDG PET (se 47-90%, sp 68-98%) or SPECT (se 36-100%, sp 41-100%) brain scans greatly increase diagnostic accuracy, showing greater involvement of frontal and anterior temporal lobes, with sparing of hippocampi and medial temporal lobes. If these results are inconclusive, we suggest detecting amyloid and tau cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers that can indicate the presence of AD with good accuracy (se 74-100%, sp 82-97%). The use of P-tau
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.