Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Progression in Frontotemporal Dementia: Identifying a Benign Behavioral Variant by Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Davies, Rhys R., Kipps, Christopher M., Mitchell, Joanna, Kril, Jillian J., Halliday, Glenda M., Hodges, John R.·2006·Archives of Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical course and prognosis in patients with behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia (FTD) lacking evidence of brain atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). DESIGN: Patients were enrolled into this prospective cohort study over a period of 15 years; cognitive status, duration of symptoms, and behavioral indexes were recorded. Brain MRIs were rated using a standardized scale. SETTING: Regional early-onset dementia clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one participants diagnosed clinically with behavioral-variant FTD. Intervention Rating of MRIs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Death or institutionalization after a minimum of 3 years' follow-up indicated poor prognosis, while the ability to live independently was regarded as a good prognosis for the purpose of survival (Kaplan-Meier) and discriminant function analysis. RESULTS: Patients with normal or borderline MRI findings (n = 15) showed significantly longer survival to institutionalization or death than those (n = 16) with definite frontotemporal atrophy (mean +/- SE, 9.3 +/- 1.7 years vs 3.0 +/- 0.7 years; P<.01). Using groups defined by 3-year outcome (good or bad prognosis), cerebral atrophy predicted poor outcome while age, symptom duration, cognitive performance, behavioral impairment, and overall disability at baseline did not. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FTD with normal MRI results follow a more benign course than cases with atrophy at presentation. The substrate of the behavioral symptoms in such cases may differ from the neurodegenerative pathological features typically associated with FTD.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneur.63.11.1627

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Davies, R. R., Kipps, C. M., Mitchell, J., Kril, J. J., Halliday, G. M., & Hodges, J. R.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Published
2006-11-01
Volume
63
Issue
11
Pages
1627
ISSN
0003-9942 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2011341635
Cited by
191
References
6
FWCI
5.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Progression in Frontotemporal Dementia: Identifying a Benign Behavioral Variant by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archneur.63.11.1627
The paper
Davies, R. R., Kipps, C. M., Mitchell, J., Kril, J. J., Halliday, G. M., & Hodges, J. R. (2006). Progression in Frontotemporal Dementia: Identifying a Benign Behavioral Variant by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Archives of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.63.11.1627

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.