The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-510x(02)00028-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Subtype analysis of neuropathologically diagnosed patients in a Japanese geriatric hospital

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

5
49
0
6

Year Published

2002
2002
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 67 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
5
49
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the disease progression has been traditionally assessed under the Braak and Braak staging scheme (Braak & Braak, 1991), several reports (Akatsu et al., 2002; Armstrong, Nochlin, & Bird, 2000; Janocko et al., 2012; Murray et al., 2014) have demonstrated a very variable AD clinical picture: Neither the progression patterns nor the same anatomical areas are involved or follow a reproducible anatomic sequence, even in series of patients belonging to comparable social and cultural environments. Approximately 25% of AD brains show atypical patterns of structural damage, usually classified as hippocampal sparing and limbic predominant AD (Murray et al., 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the disease progression has been traditionally assessed under the Braak and Braak staging scheme (Braak & Braak, 1991), several reports (Akatsu et al., 2002; Armstrong, Nochlin, & Bird, 2000; Janocko et al., 2012; Murray et al., 2014) have demonstrated a very variable AD clinical picture: Neither the progression patterns nor the same anatomical areas are involved or follow a reproducible anatomic sequence, even in series of patients belonging to comparable social and cultural environments. Approximately 25% of AD brains show atypical patterns of structural damage, usually classified as hippocampal sparing and limbic predominant AD (Murray et al., 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A frequência elevada de demência em nosso estudo pode estar relacionada à natureza da nossa amostra, pois os casos estudados foram de indivíduos provenientes do SVO, e não de indivíduos vivos. Quando comparamos nosso resultado aos estudos de autópsia, a nossa frequência de demência foi menor em relação a outros relatos [33,6% (Grinberg et al, 2009), 34% (Seno et al, 1999), 35,5% (Schneider et al, 2007), 36% (Sonnen et al, 2007), 46% (Akatsu et al, 2002), 46,4% (Jellinger, 2008), 57,5% (Schneider et al, 2009), 67% (Brayne et al, 2009)], porém maior que o relatado em outros estudos [12 % (Riekse et al, 2004), 14,6% , 18,6% (White, 2009), e 26% (Schneider et al, 2007)]. Três estudos neuropatológicos envolvendo diabéticos e não diabéticos relataram frequência de demência em sua amostra total, e elas foram mais elevadas em relação ao nosso achado, sendo de 45% (Arvanitakis e cols., 2006), 29% (Alafuzoff et al, 2009) e 38,4% (Abner et al, 2016).…”
Section: Representatividadeunclassified
“…O diagnóstico neuropatológico de DA foi o mais frequente neste estudo, correspondendo a 26,7% dos casos de demência, porém abaixo de alguns resultados descritos em estudos de autópsias que variaram de 32,7% a 46,8% da amostra (Seno et al, 1999;Bacchetta et al, 2007;White, 2009;Brayne et al, 2009;Grinberg et al, 2009;Attems, 2010;Grinberg et al, 2013). Entretanto, nosso estudo encontrou demência por DA com frequência acima das relatadas em outros estudos de autópsias que variaram de 4,5% a 22% (Akatsu et al, 2002;Riekse et al, 2004;Schneider et al, 2007;Jellinger, 2008;Schneider et al, 2009;Jellinger, 2009). …”
Section: Representatividadeunclassified
See 2 more Smart Citations