ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Discriminating behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer's disease via the Frontal Assessment Battery.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the ability of the frontal assessment battery (FAB) to differentiate Alzheimer's disease (AD) from behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), as well as to test whether its discriminatory accuracy varies as a function of disease stage.
methodsThe present retrospective cohort included N = 595 participants-153 with biomarker-supported AD, 96 with probable bvFTD, and 346 healthy controls (HCs). All HCs scored within the normal range on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. In patients, disease severity was staged according to Clinical Dementia Rating scores, retrospectively derived from the Mini-Mental State Examination. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed to assess the ability of demographically adjusted FAB scores to differentiate both patient groups from HCs and AD from bvFTD patients, including severity-stratified analyses. Binary logistic regression models adjusted for age and sex examined the contribution of individual FAB subtests to diagnostic classification.
resultsThe FAB showed excellent accuracy in distinguishing patients from HCs. In contrast, its ability to differentiate AD from bvFTD was modest overall and depended on disease severity, with adequate discrimination emerging solely at moderate-to-severe stages. At the subtest level, Lexical fluency was the only subtests that significantly differentiated bvFTD from AD, particularly in patients at the MCI/questionable dementia and moderate-to-severe dementia stage. No significant differences emerged for the remaining subtests. DISCUSSION: The FAB is an excellent screening test for executive dysfunction in both bvFTD and AD, but its contribution to the differential diagnosis between these two conditions emerges only at moderate-to-severe stages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42714664What 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.