ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2025
Written picture descriptions distinguish variants of primary progressive aphasia.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Writing Abilities in Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Scoping Literature Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundFew studies have examined written discourse in primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a clinical syndrome due to frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) or Alzheimer's disease (AD).ObjectiveWe aim to: (1) determine differences in written discourse in PPA variants and controls using three approaches for analyzing narratives, and (2) make recommendations regarding the clinical utility of these approaches.MethodsIndividuals with PPA and healthy controls wrote descriptions of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination Cookie Theft Picture (CTP). We hypothesized that written narratives would be characterized by: (1) fewer total words, lower percentages of CTP content units (CUs) and Core Lexicon Words, and lower communication efficiency in all PPA variants compared to controls; (2) fewer content words in semantic variant PPA (svPPA) than in logopenic variant PPA (lvPPA), nonfluent variant PPA (nfvPPA), and controls; and (3) fewer function words in nfvPPA than in lvPPA and controls.ResultsParticipants with svPPA had significantly lower percentages of total CTP CUs, CTP noun and verb phrase CUs, and Core Lexicon Words than lvPPA. Overall content unit (CU) profile of lvPPA was more similar to controls than to the other two variants. Written narratives of participants with nfvPPA and svPPA had significantly lower percentages of particles, a class of function words, than lvPPA participants.ConclusionsPart of speech analysis showed a deficit in function words in nfvPPA. Content unit analysis distinguished svPPA and lvPPA, and is easily incorporated into the clinical environment when spoken data are scarce or difficult to obtain because of speech production impairments.
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.