Cited by 15Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration-modified clinical dementia rating (FTLD-CDR) scale and frontotemporal dementia rating scale (FRS) correlation with regional brain perfusion in a series of FTLD patients

Open access
Maiovis, Pantelis, Ioannidis, Panagiotis, Gerasimou, Georgios, Gotzamani-Psarrakou, Anna, Karacostas, Dimitrios·2017·The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

Abstract

Severity assessment scales for frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) have been recently introduced. In the present study, the authors examined whether the FTLD-modified Clinical Dementia Rating (FTLD-CDR) scale and the Frontotemporal Dementia Rating Scale (FRS) correlated with regional brain perfusion in Greek FTLD patients. A total of 47 behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) patients and 33 primary progressive aphasia (PPA) patients were assessed for demographic data, cognitive reserve (CR), and severity of dementia and underwent brain single-photon emission computed tomography. Both scales were valid in the bvFTD group, predicting frontal lobe perfusion. In the PPA group, both scales were found to predict temporal hypoperfusion only after accounting for CR, which could imply a potential role for reserve in PPA patients.

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 · 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16020034

Cites

22 of 22 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

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
Maiovis, P., Ioannidis, P., Gerasimou, G., Gotzamani-Psarrakou, A., & Karacostas, D.
Affiliations
  • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
  • From the B Department of Neurology, AHEPA University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece (PM, PI, DK); and the B Laboratory of Nuclear Medicine, AHEPA University Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece (GG, A G-P).
Venue
The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
Published
2017-01
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
26-30
ISSN
  • 0895-0172 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7222
OpenAlex
W2463720395
Cited by
15
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuropsychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Keywords
frontotemporal lobar degeneration, severity assessment scale, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, primary progressive aphasia, cognitive reserve, frontal lobe hypoperfusion, temporal lobe hypoperfusion, single photon emission computed tomography
MeSH terms
Aged, Brain, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Female, Greece, Humans, Male, Severity of Illness Index, Cohort Studies, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon, Linear Models, Aphasia, Primary Progressive, 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