Is semantic dementia an outdated entity?

Does it still make clinical sense to talk about semantic dementia? For more than 10 years, some researchers and clinicians have highlighted the need for new diagnostic criteria, arguing for this entity either to be redefined or, more recently, to be divided into two partially distinct entities, each with its own supposed characteristics, namely the semantic variant primary progressive aphasia and the semantic behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Why such a shift? Is it no longer appropriate to talk about semantic dementia? Is it really useful to divide the concept of semantic dementia into verbal and socioemotional semantic subcomponents? Does this proposal have any clinical merit or does it solely reflect theoretical considerations? To shed light on these questions, the purpose of the present review was to explore theoretical considerations on the nature of the knowledge that is disturbed in this disease which might justify such terminological changes.