↓ Skip to main content

The clinical diagnosis of early-onset dementias: diagnostic accuracy and clinicopathological relationships

Overview of attention for article published in Brain, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
213 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
351 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
The clinical diagnosis of early-onset dementias: diagnostic accuracy and clinicopathological relationships
Published in
Brain, August 2011
DOI 10.1093/brain/awr189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie S. Snowden, Jennifer C. Thompson, Cheryl L. Stopford, Anna M. T. Richardson, Alex Gerhard, David Neary, David M. A. Mann

Abstract

Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of dementia is increasingly important for therapeutic and scientific investigations. In this study, we examine diagnostic accuracy in a consecutive series of 228 patients referred to a specialist early-onset dementia clinic, whose brains were subsequently examined at post-mortem. Diagnosis was based on structured history, neurological examination and neuropsychological assessment, with emphasis on qualitative as well as quantitative aspects of performance. Neuroimaging provided support for but did not alter the clinical diagnosis. We set out the principles that guided diagnosis: (i) time course of illness; (ii) weighting of physical, behavioural and cognitive symptoms and signs; (iii) 'anterior' versus 'posterior' hemisphere character of cognitive change; and (iv) specificity of deficit, paying attention to the differentiation between syndromes of frontotemporal lobar degeneration and focal forms of Alzheimer's disease. Forty-two per cent of the patients had clinical diagnoses of one of the syndromes of frontotemporal lobar degeneration, the high proportion reflecting the research interests of the group. Forty-six per cent were diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and the remaining patients, dementia with Lewy bodies, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, vascular or unclassified dementia. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration was identified with 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity and Alzheimer's disease with 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Patients with other pathologies were accurately identified on clinical grounds. Examination of subsyndromes of frontotemporal lobar degeneration showed a relatively predictable relationship between clinical diagnosis and pathological subtype. Whereas the behavioural disorder of frontotemporal dementia was associated with tau, transactive response DNA binding protein 43 and fused-in-sarcoma pathology, cases of frontotemporal dementia with motoneuron disease, semantic dementia and, with one exception, progressive non-fluent aphasia were associated with transactive response DNA binding protein 43 pathology, distinguished by ubiquitin subtyping (types B, C and A, respectively). Clinical diagnoses of progressive apraxia, corticobasal degeneration and progressive supranuclear palsy were, with one exception, associated with Pick, corticobasal and progressive supranuclear palsy subtypes of tau pathology, respectively. Unanticipated findings included Alzheimer pathology in two patients presenting with the behavioural syndrome of frontotemporal dementia and corticobasal pathology in four others with clinical frontotemporal dementia. Notwithstanding such anomalies, which serve as a reminder that there is not an absolute concordance between clinical phenotype and underlying pathology, the findings show that dementias can be distinguished in life with a high level of accuracy. Moreover, careful clinical phenotyping allows prediction of histopathological subtype of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. The principles guiding diagnosis provide the foundation for future prospective studies.

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 351 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 334 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 63 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 18%
Student > Master 39 11%
Student > Bachelor 32 9%
Other 26 7%
Other 85 24%
Unknown 44 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 31%
Psychology 67 19%
Neuroscience 47 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 66 19%
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 07 September 2011.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Brain
#6,618
of 7,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,117
of 131,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain
#57
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 131,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.