↓ Skip to main content

Can cognitive assessment really discriminate early stages of Alzheimer’s and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia at initial clinical presentation?

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can cognitive assessment really discriminate early stages of Alzheimer’s and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia at initial clinical presentation?
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13195-017-0287-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sophia Reul, Hubertus Lohmann, Heinz Wiendl, Thomas Duning, Andreas Johnen

Abstract

Neuropsychological testing is considered crucial for differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). In-depth neuropsychological assessment revealed specific dysfunctions in the two dementia syndromes. However, a significant overlap of cognitive impairments exists in early disease stages. We questioned whether a standard neuropsychological assessment at initial clinical presentation can delineate patients with AD versus bvFTD. In a retrospective approach, we evaluated and compared how cognitive profiles assessed at initial clinical presentation predicted the diagnosis of later verified AD (n = 43) and bvFTD (n = 26). Additionally, the neuropsychological standard domains memory, language, visuospatial skills, executive functions, praxis and social cognition were subjected to stepwise discriminant analysis to compare their differential contribution to diagnosis. Regardless of diagnosis, a percentage of patients presented with major deterioration in a wide range of cognitive domains when compared with age-matched normative data. Only few significant differences were detected on the group level: Patients with AD were relatively more impaired in the verbal recall, verbal recognition, figure copy, and surprisingly in the executive subdomains, set shifting and processing speed whereas bvFTD was characterised by more deficits in imitation of face postures. A combination of tests for verbal recall, imitation of limb and face postures, and figure copy showed the greatest discriminatory power. Our results imply that the contribution of a standard neuropsychological assessment is limited for differential diagnosis of AD and bvFTD at initial presentation. In contrast to current clinical guidelines, executive functions are neither particularly nor exclusively impaired in patients with bvFTD when assessed within a standard clinical neuropsychological test battery. The significant overlap of bvFTD and AD concerning the profile of cognitive impairments questions current neuropsychological diagnostic criteria and calls for revision, regarding both the degree and the profile of cognitive deficits.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 18%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 9 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 39 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 11%
Neuroscience 14 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 47 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,567,744
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1,176
of 1,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,547
of 318,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#32
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.0. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.