Semantic Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease: Clinical Differences in Speech-Language Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessPerspectives on GerontologyArticle1 Dec 2002Semantic Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease: Clinical Differences in Speech-Language Pathology Regina Jokel and Elizabeth Rochon Regina Jokel University of Toronto Google Scholar More articles by this author and Elizabeth Rochon University of Toronto Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/gero7.3.8 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Breedin, S. D.,Saffran, E. M., & Coslett, H. B. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia.Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 617–660. Google Scholar Cummings, J. L., & Cole, G. (2002). Alzheimer disease.Journal of American Medical Association, 18, 287. Google Scholar Funnell, E. (1996). Response biases in oral reading: An account of cooccurrence of surface dyslexia and semantic dementia.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 417–446. Google Scholar Galton, C. J.,Patterson, K.,Graham, N. L., Ralph-Ralph, M. A., Williams, G., Anton, N.,Samarian, B. J., & Hodges, J. R. (2001). Differing patterns of temporal atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease and semantic dementia.Neurology, 57, 216225. Google Scholar Graham, N. L. (2000). Dysgraphia in dementia.Neurocase, 6, 365–376. Google Scholar GrahamK. S., HodgesJ. R., &Patterson,K. E. (1994). The relationship between comprehension and oral reading in progressive fluent aphasia.Neuropsychologia, 32, 299–316. Google Scholar Graham, N. L.,Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). The impact of semantic memory impairment on spelling: Evidence from semantic dementia.Neuropsychologia, 38, 143–63. Google Scholar GrahamK. S.,Simons, J. S.,Pratt, K. H.,Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R.(1999). Insights from semantic dementia on the relationship between episodic and semantic memory.Neuropsychologia, 38, 313–324. Google Scholar Greene, J. D. W.,Patterson, K.,Xuereb, J., & Hodges, J. R. (1996). Alzheimer’s disease and nonfluent progressive aphasia.Archives of Neurology, 53, 1072–1078. Google Scholar Grossman, M. (2002). Frontotemporal dementia: a review.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 566–83. Google Scholar Hodges, J. R., & Graham, K. S. (2001). Episodic memory: Insights from semantic dementia.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1424–1434. Google Scholar Hodges, J. R.,, Patterson, K. E., Oxbury S., & Funnell, E.(1992a). Semantic dementia: Progressive fluent aphasia with temporal lobe atrophy.Brain, 115, 1783–1806. Google Scholar Hodges J ., Graham K. S., & Patterson K. Charting the progression in semantic dementia: Implications for the organization of semantic memory.Semantic Knowledge and Semantic Representation. Memory, 3, 463–495. Google Scholar Hodges, J. R., & Miller, B. (2001). The neuropsychology of frontal variant frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia. Introduction to special topic papers: Part II. Neurocase,7, 113–121. Google Scholar Hodges, J. R.,, Patterson, K.,Ward, R.,Garrard, P.,Bak, T., & Perry, G. C.(1999). The differentiation of semantic dementia and frontal lobe dementia (temporal and frontal variants of frontotemporal dementia) from early Alzheimer’s disease: A comparative neuropsychological study.Neuropsychology, 13, 31–40. Google Scholar Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (1996). Nonfluent progressive aphasia and semantic dementia: A comparative neuropsychological study.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2, 511–524. Google Scholar Kertesz, A., & Orange, J. B. (2000). Primary progressive aphasia - the future of neurolinguistic and biologic characterization.Brain and Language, 71, 116–9. Google Scholar Luzatti, C. (1999). Language disorders in dementia.In D Gafranco& L Pizzamiglio(Eds.), Handbook of clinical and experimental neuropsychology(pp. 809–846). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum, Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar Mesulam, M.-.M. (1982). Slowly progressive aphasia without generalized dementia.Annals of Neurology, 11, 592–598. Google Scholar Mesulam, M.-.M. (2001). Primary progressive aphasia. Annals of Neurology, 49, 425–432. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Mesulam, M.-M., & Weintraub, S. (1992). Spectrum of primary progressive aphasia. Bailiere’s Clinical Neurology.International Practice and Research, 1, 583–609. Google Scholar Morris, J. C., & Balota, D. A. (2001). Semantic dementia versus Alzheimer’s disease: A matter of semantics?.Neurology, 57, 173–4. Google Scholar Mummery, C. J.,Patterson, K.,Price, C. J.,Ashburner, J.,Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). A voxel-based morphometry study of semantic dementia: Relationship between temporal lobe atrophy and semantic memory.Annals of Neurology, 47, 36–45. Google Scholar Neary, D.,Snowden, J. S., Gustafson,L., Passant, U.,Stuss, D.,Black, S.,Freedman, M.,Kertesz, A.,Robert, P. H.,Albert, M.,Boone, K.,Miller, B. L.,Cummings, J., & Benson, D. F. (1998). Frontotemporal lobar degeneration.Neurology, 51, 1546–1554. Google Scholar Noble K.Glosser G. & Grossman M.(2000). Oral reading in semantic dementia.Brain and Language, 74, 48–69. Google Scholar Pasquier, F.,Grymonprez, L., Lebert,F., & Van der Linden, M. (2001). Memory impairment differs in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.Neurocase, 7, 161–171. Google Scholar PerryR. J., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). Differentiating frontal and temporal variant frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer’s disease.Neurology, 54, 2277–2284. Google Scholar Rochen E.Waters G. S. & Caplan D.(2000). The relationship between measures of working memory and sentence comprehension in patient’s with Alzheimer’s disease.Journal of Speech, Language, Hearing Research, 43, 395–413. Google Scholar Rogers, M. A., & Alarcon, N. B. (1998). Dissolution of spoken language in primary progressive aphasia.Aphasiology, 12, 635–650. Google Scholar Snowden, J. S. (1999). Semantic dysfunction in frontotemporal lobar degeneration.Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 10(suppl 1), 33–36. Google Scholar Snowden, J. S., & Neary, D. (2002). Relearning of verbal labels in semantic dementia.Neuropsy-chologia, 40, 1715–1728. Google Scholar Snowden J. S, Neary D. & Mann D. A. M.(1996). Fronto-temporal lobar degeneration: Fronto-temporal dementia, progressive aphasia, semantic dementia.New York: Churchill Livingstone. Google Scholar Thompson, C. K.,Ballard, K. J.,Tait, M. E.,Weintraub, S., & Mesulam, M.-M. (1997). Patterns of language decline in nonfluent primary progressive aphasia.Aphasiology, 11, 297–331. Google Scholar Warrington, E. (1975). Selective impairment of semantic memory.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 635–657. Google Scholar Zakzanis, K. K. (1999). Neuropsychological signature of primary progressive aphasia.Brain and Language. Google Scholar Zakzanis K. K.Leach L. & Kaplan E.(1999). Neuropsychological differential diagnosis.Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 7Issue 3December 2002Pages: 8-13 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Dec 1, 2002 Metrics Downloaded 21 times Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2002 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".