ArticleAlzheimer's research & therapy2026
Diagnostic performance of verbal fluency measures: a cross-sectional study in the stages of cognitive continuum.
Article in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVerbal fluency (VF) measures are sensitive markers of advanced cognitive decline; however, the utility of the discrepancy score remains underexplored in the early stages of cognitive decline, such as subjective cognitive decline (SCD). This study evaluated semantic fluency (SF) and phonemic fluency (PF), as well as discrepancy score sensitivity, in clinical populations with SCD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 193 older adults (72 healthy controls, 67 with SCD, 16 with MCI, and 38 with dementia) were consecutively recruited from the Nyírő Gyula National Institute of Psychiatry and Addictology, Hungary. Each participant underwent a comprehensive neurological interview and neuropsychological assessments. Semantic and phonemic fluency, along with their discrepancy, served as the primary outcome measures, defined as the number of correct words generated in one minute for each fluency type and the difference between them. Group differences were assessed using one-way ANCOVAs that controlled for age and education, and diagnostic classification performance was evaluated using a multinomial logistic regression model-based metric.
resultsRelative to healthy controls, SCD showed significantly lower SF scores (β = − 2.267, p = .009) but no difference in PF (p = .493). Both fluency types were reduced in MCI and dementia, with semantic declines being especially pronounced. Multinomial logistic regression model identified dementia most accurately using SF (balanced accuracy = 0.81) and SCD using the discrepancy score (balanced accuracy = 0.61), while MCI classification was poor, likely due to a small sample size. These results underscore the potential of SF and its discrepancy with PF for early detection and differentiation of cognitive decline.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that individuals with SCD have deficits in semantic—but not phonemic—fluency, and that VF discrepancy scores detect SCD more effectively than semantic fluency alone. However, accuracy is only moderate and insufficient for use as a standalone clinical test.
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.