ArticleCortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior2021
Task performance to discriminate among variants of primary progressive aphasia.
Article in Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Empathy in primary progressive aphasia: Neural signatures and longitudinal trajectories.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Your Mileage May Vary: Individuals with Primary Progressive Aphasia Differ Widely in Their Utilization of Congruent Prosodic and Visual Information During Sentence Comprehension.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Posterior Cortical Atrophy: Altered Language Processing System Connectivity and Its Implications on Language Comprehension and Production.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Language assessment in primary progressive aphasia: Which components should be tested?PloS one · 2025Article
- Speech perception and language comprehension in primary progressive aphasia.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2024Article
- Shave, shear, shred, or cut: PPA variant differentially impacts erroneous responses produced in a confrontation naming test of verbs.Aphasiology · 2024Article
- Word Picture Verification Performance Reveals Auditory Comprehension Deficits in Primary Progressive Aphasia.Journal of neurolinguistics · 2023Article
- Verb Frequency and Density Drive Naming Performance in Primary Progressive Aphasia.Aphasiology · 2023Article
- When words first fail: Predicting the emergence of primary progressive aphasia variants from unclassifiable anomic performance in early disease.Aphasiology · 2023Article
- Regression-Based Normative Data for Independent and Cognitively Active Spanish Older Adults: Verbal Fluency Tests and Boston Naming Test.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Case Report: Semantic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia Associated With Anti-Glial Fibrillary Acid Protein Autoantibodies.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Primary progressive aphasia can be distinguished into one of three variants: semantic, non-fluent/agrammatic, and logopenic. While a considerable body of work exists characterizing each variant, few prior studies have addressed the problem of optimizing behavioral assessment in a typical outpatient evaluation setting. Our aim is to examine the sensitivity and specificity of a battery of cognitive and linguistic assessments and determine optimal scores for distinguishing patients' subtype based on these instruments. This was a retrospective analysis of outpatient clinical testing of individuals with known or suspected primary progressive aphasia. Evaluations included the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center frontotemporal lobar degeneration module and additional measures of naming, semantic association, word verification, and picture description. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to examine the utility of each task in distinguishing each variant from the others. Logistic regressions were used to examine the combined utility of tasks for distinguishing a given subtype. We examined 435 evaluations of 222 patients retrospectively. The battery was most consistent in distinguishing semantic variant by low scores and non-fluent/agrammatic variant by high scores on a similar subset of tasks. Tasks best distinguishing semantic variant produced a model that correctly classified 86% of cases. Tasks best distinguishing non-fluent/agrammatic variant correctly classified 77% of cases. The battery of tasks was weakest in identifying logopenic variant; only the ratio of sentence reading to sentence repetition performance was identified as a reasonable predictor, and it had predictive accuracy of 67%. Naming assessments were the strongest basis for distinguishing all variants, particularly semantic variant from non-fluent/agrammatic variant. These data illustrate that a number of commonly used assessments perform at chance in distinguishing variant and preliminarily support an abbreviated battery that marginally favors tools not currently included in the frontotemporal lobar degeneration module.
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.