Cited by 54Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Characterization of the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Conca, Francesca, Esposito, Valentina, Giusto, Giada, Cappa, Stefano F., Catricalà, Eleonora·2022·Ageing Research Reviews

Abstract

The linguistic and anatomical variability of the logopenic variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia (lv-PPA) as defined by current diagnostic criteria has been the topic of an intense debate. The present review and meta-analysis aims at characterizing the profile of lv-PPA, by a comprehensive analysis of the available literature on the neuropsychological, neuroimaging, electrophysiological, pathological, and genetic features of lv-PPA. We conducted a systematic bibliographic search, leading to the inclusion of 207 papers. Of them, 12 were used for the Anatomical Likelihood Estimation meta-analysis on grey matter revealed by magnetic resonance imaging data. The results suggest that the current guidelines outline a relatively consistent syndrome, characterized by a core set of linguistic and, to a lesser extent, non-linguistic deficits, mirroring the involvement of left temporal and parietal regions typically affected by Alzheimer Disease pathology. Variations of the lv-PPA profile are discussed in terms of heterogeneity of the neuropsychological instruments and the diagnostic criteria adopted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101760

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Systematic reviews show that speech and language studies across neurodegenerative diseases span fewer than 20 languages, most tested in only a handful of papers.

    “Also, as shown by systematic reviews, speech and language studies across neurodegenerative diseases span fewer than 20 languages, most of them tested in only a handful of papers. 4,5,47,81-83”
  • In a systematic review of logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, 71.5% of findings came from speakers of English.

    “In a systematic review of logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, for instance, 71.5% of findings came from speakers of English. 81”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conca, F., Esposito, V., Giusto, G., Cappa, S. F., & Catricalà, E.
Affiliations
Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia (IT)
Corresponding author
Cappa, Stefano F.
Venue
Ageing Research Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
82
Pages
101760
ISSN
1568-1637 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4305070947
Cited by
54
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ageing Research Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministero della Salute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, primary progressive aphasia, diagnostic criteria, neuropsychological profile, neuroimaging, gray matter atrophy, left temporal lobe, left parietal lobe, Alzheimer disease pathology, electrophysiology, genetic characteristics, language deficits, diagnostic heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Alzheimer Disease, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neuropsychological Tests, Aphasia, Primary Progressive

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