↓ Skip to main content

Primary Progressive Aphasia and Alzheimer’s Disease: Brief History, Recent Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
Title
Primary Progressive Aphasia and Alzheimer’s Disease: Brief History, Recent Evidence
Published in
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, August 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11910-012-0307-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Howard S. Kirshner

Abstract

Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) has been recognized as a syndrome distinct from the usual pattern of language deterioration in Alzheimer's disease and typically more related to the pathology of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). In recent years, however, the syndromes of primary progressive aphasia have become more complex, divided into the three subtypes of progressive nonfluent aphasia (PNFA), semantic dementia (SD), and logopenic/phonological progressive aphasia (LPA). These syndromes have not only made the linguistic analysis more complex, but the associated pathologies have also become more variable. In particular, PNFA is usually, but not always, associated with FTD pathology and often evidence of a tau mutation, but rarely AD; SD is usually associated with FTD of the ubiquitin staining or progranulin (TAR-DNA) mutation type, but, again, occasionally AD; LPA is typically associated with AD pathology. Patterns of atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) generally conform to these subtypes, with PNFA associated with left frontal and insular atophy, SD associated with bilateral temporal atrophy, and LPA associated with L superior-posterior temporal and parietal atrophy. These patterns can also be seen on positron emission (PET) scanning with fluorodeoxyglucose. The newer amyloid binding ligand PET technologies are less useful for detecting regional atrophy patterns but more useful for indication of the underlying pathology. We can thus speak of syndromes of PPA or underlying pathological bases of 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 25%
Psychology 18 17%
Neuroscience 11 11%
Linguistics 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 21 20%
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 26 July 2014.
All research outputs
#15,291,355
of 24,247,965 outputs
Outputs from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#659
of 958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,985
of 172,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,247,965 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 172,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.