Cited by 43Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Comparison of sporadic and familial behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (FTD) in a North American cohort

Open access
Heuer, Hilary W., Wang, P., Rascovsky, K., Wolf, A., Appleby, B., Bove, J., Bordelon, Y., Brannelly, P. +70 more·2020·Alzheimer's & Dementia

Abstract

Introduction: Behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) may present sporadically or due to an autosomal dominant mutation. Characterization of both forms will improve understanding of the generalizability of assessments and treatments. Methods: A total of 135 sporadic (s‐bvFTD; mean age 63.3 years; 34% female) and 99 familial (f‐bvFTD; mean age 59.9; 48% female) bvFTD participants were identified. f‐bvFTD cases included 43 with known or presumed chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 (C9orf72) gene expansions, 28 with known or presumed microtubule‐associated protein tau (MAPT) mutations, 14 with known progranulin (GRN) mutations, and 14 with a strong family history of FTD but no identified mutation. Results: Participants with f‐bvFTD were younger and had earlier age at onset. s‐bvFTD had higher total Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI‐Q) scores due to more frequent endorsement of depression and irritability. Discussion: f‐bvFTD and s‐bvFTD cases are clinically similar, suggesting the generalizability of novel biomarkers, therapies, and clinical tools developed in either form to the other.

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 · 10.1002/alz.12046

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ARTFL LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration Consortium involves 23 sites in North America and has evaluated over 1500 participants so far.

    “ARTFL LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration Consortium, which involves 23 sites in North America and has evaluated over 1500 participants so far.2,65,94”

    From Advances and controversies in frontotemporal dementia: diagnosis, biomarkers, and therapeutic considerations (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Methods describe ARTFL/LEFFTDS evaluations at eighteen North American sites, not 23; the Introduction describes the study cohort as evaluated at sixteen sites. The paper identifies the consortia, but the passages found do not report that they had evaluated over 1,500 participants. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Social cognition complements the assessment of behavioural features during clinical interview or via informant report, since behavioural features can be influenced both by the person's insight and the availability and knowledge of an informant.

    “Social cognition complements the assessment of behavioural features (ie, apathy, disinhibition, stereo typical behaviours, and changes in eating behaviour) during clinical interview 2 or via informant report, since behavioural features can be influenced both by the person's insight and the availability and knowledge of an informant.”

    From Advances and controversies in frontotemporal dementia: diagnosis, biomarkers, and therapeutic considerations (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [16]Schwab R, England A. Projecton technique for evaluating surgery in Parkinson’s disease. In: Gillingham F, Donaldson M, editors. Third Symposium on Parkinson’s Disease Research Edinburgh, Scotland: ES Livingston; 1969.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heuer, H. W., Wang, P., Rascovsky, K., Wolf, A., Appleby, B., Bove, J., Bordelon, Y., Brannelly, P., Brushaber, D. E., Caso, C., Coppola, G., Dickerson, B., Dickinson, S., Domoto‐Reilly, K., Faber, K., Ferrall, J., Fields, J., Fishman, A., Fong, J., Foroud, T., Forsberg, L. K., Gearhart, D., Ghazanfari, B., Ghoshal, N., Goldman, J., Graff‐Radford, J., Graff‐Radford, N., Grant, I., Grossman, M., Haley, D., Hsiung, G. ‐., Huey, E., Irwin, D., Jones, D., Kantarci, K., Karydas, A., Kaufer, D., Kerwin, D., Knopman, D., Kornak, J., Kramer, J. H., Kraft, R., Kremers, W. K., Kukull, W., Litvan, I., Ljubenkov, P., Mackenzie, I. R., Maldonado, M., Manoochehri, M., McGinnis, S., McKinley, E., Mendez, M. F., Miller, B. L., Onyike, C., Pantelyat, A., Pearlman, R., Petrucelli, L., Potter, M., Rademakers, R., Ramos, E. M., Rankin, K. P., Roberson, E. D., Rogalski, E., Sengdy, P., Shaw, L., Syrjanen, J., Tartaglia, M. C., Tatton, N., Taylor, J., Toga, A., Trojanowski, J., Weintraub, S., Wong, B., Wszolek, Z., Boeve, B. F., Rosen, H. J., Boxer, A. L., & consortia, O. B. O. T. A. A. L.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Rainwater Charitable Foundation (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic in Florida (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Bluefield Project San Francisco California
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Northwestern University Chicago Illinois
  • Mayo Clinic Jacksonville Florida
Corresponding author
Heuer, Hilary W.
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
60-70
ISSN
  • 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5279
OpenAlex
W2999348544
Cited by
43
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (U01 AG045390, U54 NS092089, U24 AG021886, U01 AG016976)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia
MeSH terms
C9orf72 Protein, Progranulins, Age Factors, Aged, Brain, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Neuropsychological Tests, North America, tau Proteins, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Frontotemporal Dementia

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