ArticleArchives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists2025
Can Frontal Assessment Battery Discriminate between Patients with Alzheimer's and Frontotemporal Dementia?
Article in Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discriminating behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer's disease via the Frontal Assessment Battery.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Memory, social cognition, and beyond: Neuropsychological markers differentiating Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) is a widely used tool for assessing executive function. However, its ability to distinguish between Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD) and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) remains under debate. This study assessed the diagnostic utility of the Chilean version of the FAB (FAB-Ch) in differentiating ADD from bvFTD and used data-driven cluster analysis to explore dysexecutive profiles.
methodA total of 288 participants were recruited: 45 with ADD, 33 with bvFTD, and 208 cognitively unimpaired controls (CU). Mean FAB-Ch total scores were compared across groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves evaluated the instrument's ability to distinguish (i) dementia from no dementia, (ii) ADD from bvFTD, and (iii) executive dysfunction. Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify executive profiles among dementia patients.
resultsFAB-Ch scores were significantly lower in individuals with dementia compared to controls (p < .001). However, there were no significant differences between ADD and bvFTD groups (p = .59). The FAB-Ch showed strong discriminatory power between dementia and controls (AUC = 0.882; sensitivity = 0.731; specificity = 0.885), but poor discrimination between ADD and bvFTD (AUC = 0.465; p = .59). Cluster analysis among patients with dementia revealed three distinct executive profiles corresponding to different levels of cognitive impairment (p < .001).
conclusionThe FAB-Ch effectively differentiates individuals with dementia from cognitively unimpaired controls but does not distinguish between ADD and bvFTD. Nevertheless, it is sensitive to executive dysfunction and can aid in the clinical characterization of dementia severity and heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.