Cited by 106

Diagnostic Utility of Letter Fluency, Category Fluency, and Fluency Difference Scores in Alzheimer's Disease

Cerhan, Jane H., Ivnik, Robert J., Smith, Glenn E., Tangalos, Eric C., Petersen, Ronald C., Boeve, Bradley F.·2002·The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Abstract

Word generation tasks, specifically letter fluency and category fluency, are a standard part of most test protocols used by clinical neuropsychologists to measure aspects of language and executive retrieval functions. Given the reliance on these measures as clinical tools, it is important to understand the diagnostic implications of patients' performances. In Alzheimer's disease (AD), category fluency has generally been found to be disproportionately impaired, whereas letter fluency is usually more mildly impaired. It has been proposed that this performance pattern occurs because access to temporal-lobe semantic stores is necessary for category fluency but not letter fluency. In this study, the diagnostic utility of category fluency, letter fluency, and difference scores (letter fluency minus category fluency) in AD were examined. Forty AD patients and 221 normal control subjects took category fluency and letter fluency tests. Traditional t-test comparisons revealed that the groups differed significantly on the two test tasks and in terms of mean difference scores. However, using sensitivity and specificity to calculate predictive values, only category fluency and letter fluency (but not difference scores) were useful in predicting AD in individuals. Furthermore, category fluency was superior to letter fluency in this regard. Likelihood ratio tables are provided for use in calculating the odds of AD for specific category fluency and letter fluency scores generated by individu…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1076/clin.16.1.35.8326

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cerhan, J. H., Ivnik, R. J., Smith, G. E., Tangalos, E. C., Petersen, R. C., & Boeve, B. F.
Venue
The Clinical Neuropsychologist
Published
2002-02
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
35-42
ISSN
  • 1385-4046
  • 1744-4144
Cited by
106
References
0
Language
en

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