ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2024
Utility of visual rating scales in primary progressive aphasia.
Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual rating scales of atrophy differentiate sporadic behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from primary psychiatric disorder: DIPPA study.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Article
- Predictor model for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease using visual rating scales.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Article
- Advancing Neuropsychological Rehabilitation in Primary Progressive Aphasia Based on Principles of Cognitive Neuroscience: A Scoping Review and Systematic Analysis of the Data.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- Quantitative assessment of brain atrophy in bvFTD: Implications for diagnostic conversion.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDifferential diagnosis among subjects with Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) can be challenging. Structural MRI can support the clinical profile. Visual rating scales are a simple and reliable tool to assess brain atrophy in the clinical setting. The aims of the study were to establish to what extent the visual rating scales could be useful in the differential diagnosis of PPA, to compare the clinical diagnostic impressions derived from routine MRI interpretations with those obtained using the visual rating scale and to correlate results of the scales in a voxel-based morphometry (VBM) analysis.
methodPatients diagnosed with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) according to current criteria from two centers-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico of Milan and Hospital Clínic de Barcelona-were included in the study. Two blinded clinicians evaluated the subjects MRIs for cortical atrophy and white matter hyperintensities using two protocols: routine readings and the visual rating scale. The diagnostic accuracy between patients and controls and within PPA subgroups were compared between the two protocols.
resultsOne hundred fifty Subjects were studied. All the scales showed a good to excellent intra and inter-rater agreement. The left anterior temporal scale could differentiate between semantic PPA and all other variants. The rater impression after the protocol can increase the accuracy just for the logopenic PPA. In the VBM analysis, the scores of visual rating scales correlate with the corresponding area of brain atrophy.
conclusionThe Left anterior temporal rating scale can distinguish semantic PPA from other variants. The rater impression after structured view improved the diagnostic accuracy of logopenic PPA compared to normal readings. The unstructured view of the MRI was reliable for identifying semantic PPA and controls. Neither the structured nor the unstructured view could identify the nonfluent and undetermined variants.
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.