↓ Skip to main content

Classification of the primary progressive aphasias: principles and review of progress since 2011

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
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
Classification of the primary progressive aphasias: principles and review of progress since 2011
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13195-016-0185-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rik Vandenberghe

Abstract

Highly influential recommendations published in 2011 for the classification of the primary progressive aphasias (PPA) distinguished three subtypes: the semantic variant, the nonfluent/agrammatic variant, and the logopenic variant. We review empirical evidence published after 2011 that bears relevance to the validity of the recommended classification scheme. The studies that we review principally rely on monocentric, memory clinic-based consecutive series of PPA patients. We review whether a data-driven analysis of neurolinguistic test scores confirms the subtyping that was based on expert consensus, whether the 2011 subtyping covers the diversity of PPA in a comprehensive manner, and whether the proposed subgroups differ along dimensions that are not explicitly part of the defining criteria, such as diffusion tractography. Data-driven mathematical analyses of neurolinguistic data in PPA broadly confirm the presence of separate clusters corresponding to the subtypes but also leave 15-30 % unclassified. A comprehensive description of PPA requires the addition of the mixed variant as a fourth subtype and needs to leave room for cases fulfilling the criteria for a root diagnosis of PPA but not those of any of the three subtypes. Finally, given the limited predictive value of the clinical phenotype for the underlying neuropathology, biomarkers of the underlying pathology are likely of clinical utility in PPA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Other 14 9%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 27%
Psychology 25 15%
Neuroscience 23 14%
Linguistics 11 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 38 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,260,335
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1,091
of 1,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,116
of 299,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 299,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.