↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosing the frontal variant of Alzheimer’s disease: a clinician’s yellow brick road

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosing the frontal variant of Alzheimer’s disease: a clinician’s yellow brick road
Published in
Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40734-017-0052-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Russell P. Sawyer, Federico Rodriguez-Porcel, Matthew Hagen, Rhonna Shatz, Alberto J. Espay

Abstract

Disruption of the frontal lobes and its associated networks are a common consequence of neurodegenerative disorders. Given the wide range of cognitive, behavioral and motor processes in which the frontal lobes are involved, there can be a great variety of manifestations depending on the pathology distribution. The most common are the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) and the frontal variant of Alzheimer's disease (fvAD), which are particularly challenging to disentangle. Recognizing fvAD from bvFTD-related pathologies is a diagnostic challenge and a critical need in the management and counseling of these patients. Here we present three pathology-proven cases of Alzheimer's disease initially misdiagnosed as bvFTD and discuss the distinctive or less overlapping historical, examination, and laboratory findings of fvAD and bvFTD, deriving analogies for mnemonic endurance from the Wizard of Oz worldview. The Yellow Brick Road to diagnosing these disorders may be served by the metaphor of fvAD as the irritable, paranoid, and tremulous Scarecrow and bvFTD the heartless, ritualistic, and rigid Tin Man. An Oz-inspired creative license may help the clinician recognize the differential disease progression, caregiver burden, and treatment response of fvAD compared with bvFTD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 17%
Student > Postgraduate 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 31%
Psychology 20 19%
Neuroscience 13 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 28 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 25 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,496,202
of 25,711,194 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders
#4
of 65 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,885
of 324,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 65 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 324,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them