Cited by 45Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Differences in cognitive impairment in primary age-related tauopathy versus Alzheimer disease

Open access
Besser, Lilah M, Mock, Charles, Teylan, Merilee A, Hassenstab, Jason, Kukull, Walter A, Crary, John F·2019·Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology

Abstract

This study examined differences in neuropsychological test scores between individuals with primary age-related tauopathy (PART) and Alzheimer disease (AD) using cross-sectional data from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center. Linear regression tested for differences in 4 cognitive domains stratified by cognitive status (global Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR]). The sample included 240 participants with no neuritic plaques (NP) (definite PART), 186 with sparse NP (possible PART), and 510 with moderate/frequent NP (AD). Four cognitive domain z-score outcome variables (memory, attention, executive function, and semantic memory/language) were calculated using 12 neuropsychological tests. Definite PART participants had a sparing of semantic memory/language compared to those with AD, with a mean adjusted z-score difference of 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16-0.58) for those with CDR = 0.5 or 1 and of 0.92 (CI: 0.22-1.63) for those with CDR = 2 or 3. Compared to participants with AD, definite PART participants with CDR = 0.5 or 1 had sparing of memory (adjusted z-score difference: 0.61; CI: 0.39-0.84) and definite PART participants with CDR = 2 or 3 had sparing of attention (adjusted z-score difference: 0.76: CI: 0.09-1.43). Patterns of cognitive impairment differed between definite PART and AD, suggesting significant differences in clinical presentation between individuals from these 2 groups.

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 · 10.1093/jnen/nly132

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • AD-Mimics and definite PART are both defined as having no neuritic plaques, and PART participants are generally older and experience less severe cognitive dysfunction.

    “AD-Mimics and definite PART are both defined as having no neuritic plaques, and like the AD-Mimics in this study, PART participants are generally older and experience less severe cognitive dysfunction (22,23).”

    From Concordance of Clinical Alzheimer Diagnosis and Neuropathological Features at Autopsy (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Participants section defines definite PART as having no neuritic plaques, and the Results and Discussion report less severe cognitive impairment in PART than in AD. The Discussion describes PART as typically affecting older people, but says the age distribution was similar for definite PART and AD. This paper does not address the definition of AD-Mimics, so it does not support that part of the jointly cited sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Besser, L. M., Mock, C., Teylan, M. A., Hassenstab, J., Kukull, W. A., & Crary, J. F.
Affiliations
  • Florida Atlantic University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
Besser, Lilah M
Venue
Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology
Published
2019-02-01
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
219-228
ISSN
  • 0022-3069 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-6578
OpenAlex
W2913901142
Cited by
45
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • NIA (P30 AG019610, P30 AG013846, P50 AG008702, P50 AG025688, P50 AG047266)
  • NIH (U01 AG016976)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 NS095252, R01 AG054008, RF1 AG06096, R01 AG062348)
  • Alzheimer’s Association (NIRG-15-363188)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
primary age-related tauopathy, Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, semantic memory, language, memory, attention, executive function, Clinical Dementia Rating, neuritic plaques, neuropsychological test scores, differential diagnosis
MeSH terms
Mental Status and Dementia Tests, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Tauopathies, Cognitive Dysfunction

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