Cited by 26Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNeurological disorders and treatments

Frontal deficits differentiate progressive supranuclear palsy from P arkinson's disease

Lee, Young‐Eun C., Williams, David R., Anderson, Jacqueline F. I.·2016·Journal of Neuropsychology

Abstract

The clinical differentiation of progressive supranuclear palsy from P arkinson's disease can be challenging, due to overlapping clinical features and a lack of diagnostic markers. Abnormalities in cognitive function form part of the clinical spectrums of these diseases and distinctive cognitive profiles may be helpful in differentiating these diseases in the diagnostic period. A comprehensive neuropsychological test battery was administered to 12 patients with clinically diagnosed progressive supranuclear palsy and 12 patients with P arkinson's disease matched for age and disease duration. Effect size ( C ohen's d ) was calculated for cognitive tests that were significantly different between groups. Patients with progressive supranuclear palsy performed significantly worse than those with P arkinson's disease on measures of processing speed, verbal fluency, planning, verbal abstract reasoning, verbal memory, and made more perseverative responses on a set shifting task. Measures of executive function, manual dexterity and processing speed were most diagnostically useful ( C ohen's d > 2.0) in differentiating between progressive supranuclear palsy and P arkinson's disease. These findings suggest that more severe and prominent ‘frontal’ cognitive deficits in patients with progressive parkinsonism would be helpful in predicting progressive supranuclear palsy rather than P arkinson's disease and these findings may contribute to the development of diagnostic criteria.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jnp.12053

Cites

46 of 46 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, Y. C., Williams, D. R., & Anderson, J. F. I.
Affiliations
  • Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences University of Melbourne Victoria Australia
  • The Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Jacqueline F. I.
Venue
Journal of Neuropsychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09-16
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 1748-6645 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-6653
OpenAlex
W2104052604
Cited by
26
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Victorian Brain Bank
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
Keywords
progressive supranuclear palsy, Parkinson's disease, differential diagnosis, frontal lobe dysfunction, executive function, processing speed, perseveration, set-shifting, verbal fluency, planning, verbal memory, cognitive profile
MeSH terms
Aged, Cognition, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Parkinson Disease, Supranuclear Palsy, Progressive, Case-Control Studies

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