↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Neuropsychological Examination in the Diagnostic Distinction of Alzheimer's Disease and Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, June 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
A Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Neuropsychological Examination in the Diagnostic Distinction of Alzheimer's Disease and Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00119
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jingjing Wang, Stephen J. Redmond, Maxime Bertoux, John R. Hodges, Michael Hornberger

Abstract

The clinical distinction between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) remains challenging and largely dependent on the experience of the clinician. This study investigates whether objective machine learning algorithms using supportive neuroimaging and neuropsychological clinical features can aid the distinction between both diseases. Retrospective neuroimaging and neuropsychological data of 166 participants (54 AD; 55 bvFTD; 57 healthy controls) was analyzed via a Naïve Bayes classification model. A subgroup of patients (n = 22) had pathologically-confirmed diagnoses. Results show that a combination of gray matter atrophy and neuropsychological features allowed a correct classification of 61.47% of cases at clinical presentation. More importantly, there was a clear dissociation between imaging and neuropsychological features, with the latter having the greater diagnostic accuracy (respectively 51.38 vs. 62.39%). These findings indicate that, at presentation, machine learning classification of bvFTD and AD is mostly based on cognitive and not imaging features. This clearly highlights the urgent need to develop better biomarkers for both diseases, but also emphasizes the value of machine learning in determining the predictive diagnostic features in neurodegeneration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 70 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 19%
Psychology 12 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Computer Science 6 8%
Engineering 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 19 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,783,810
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#1,137
of 4,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,308
of 326,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#16
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 326,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.