BACKGROUND: Despite striking neuropsychological and behavioural differences between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), clinical diagnostic criteria failed to discriminate FTD from AD patients. We therefore developed the Middelheim Frontality Score (MFS), a disease-long clinical and behavioural assessment tool that measures frontal lobe features, and set up this prospective study in clinically diagnosed AD and FTD patients to assess discriminatory power and intra- and inter-rater variability. METHODS: Patients with probable AD (n = 400) and FTD (n = 62) were included. The MFS was obtained by summating the scores obtained in a standardized fashion on ten items yielding a total maximal score of 10. Information was obtained through an interview of the patient and her/his caregiver, clinical files and behavioural observation. RESULTS: Comparing mean total MFS scores, FTD patients (6.3 +/- 1.8) had significantly higher scores than AD patients (3.1 +/- 1.8) (p < 0.001). Distribution of scores on individual MFS items was significantly different between both disease groups (chi(2) = 76.2; p < 0.001). A moderately positive and highly significant correlation was shown between the total MFS score and diagnosis FTD (r = 0.478; p < 0.0001). Applying a total MFS score of 5 as discriminatory cut-off, a specificity of 89.0% and a sensitivity of 88.7% were achieved. Intra- and inter-rater variability was calculated in a different study population by means of retest correlation, revealing moderate to strong positive correlations of high statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The MFS is a clinical and behavioural assessment scale that measures frontal lobe features and that was shown to reliably discriminate FTD from AD patients.
BACKGROUND: Despite striking neuropsychological and behavioural differences between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), clinical diagnostic criteria failed to discriminate FTD from ADpatients. We therefore developed the Middelheim Frontality Score (MFS), a disease-long clinical and behavioural assessment tool that measures frontal lobe features, and set up this prospective study in clinically diagnosed AD and FTDpatients to assess discriminatory power and intra- and inter-rater variability. METHODS:Patients with probable AD (n = 400) and FTD (n = 62) were included. The MFS was obtained by summating the scores obtained in a standardized fashion on ten items yielding a total maximal score of 10. Information was obtained through an interview of the patient and her/his caregiver, clinical files and behavioural observation. RESULTS: Comparing mean total MFS scores, FTDpatients (6.3 +/- 1.8) had significantly higher scores than ADpatients (3.1 +/- 1.8) (p < 0.001). Distribution of scores on individual MFS items was significantly different between both disease groups (chi(2) = 76.2; p < 0.001). A moderately positive and highly significant correlation was shown between the total MFS score and diagnosis FTD (r = 0.478; p < 0.0001). Applying a total MFS score of 5 as discriminatory cut-off, a specificity of 89.0% and a sensitivity of 88.7% were achieved. Intra- and inter-rater variability was calculated in a different study population by means of retest correlation, revealing moderate to strong positive correlations of high statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The MFS is a clinical and behavioural assessment scale that measures frontal lobe features and that was shown to reliably discriminate FTD from ADpatients.
Authors: Stefanie Keulen; Peter Mariën; Kim van Dun; Roelien Bastiaanse; Mario Manto; Jo Verhoeven Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Badri N Vardarajan; Dolly Reyes-Dumeyer; Angel L Piriz; Rafael A Lantigua; Martin Medrano; Diones Rivera; Ivonne Z Jiménez-Velázquez; Eden Martin; Margaret A Pericak-Vance; William Bush; Lindsay Farrer; Jonathan L Haines; Li-San Wang; Yuk Yee Leung; Gerard Schellenberg; Walter Kukull; Philip De Jager; David A Bennett; Julie A Schneider; Richard Mayeux Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Guerry M Peavy; David P Salmon; Steven D Edland; Steven Tam; Lawrence A Hansen; Eliezer Masliah; Douglas Galasko; Joanne M Hamilton Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Katya Rascovsky; John R Hodges; David Knopman; Mario F Mendez; Joel H Kramer; John Neuhaus; John C van Swieten; Harro Seelaar; Elise G P Dopper; Chiadi U Onyike; Argye E Hillis; Keith A Josephs; Bradley F Boeve; Andrew Kertesz; William W Seeley; Katherine P Rankin; Julene K Johnson; Maria-Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Howard Rosen; Caroline E Prioleau-Latham; Albert Lee; Christopher M Kipps; Patricia Lillo; Olivier Piguet; Jonathan D Rohrer; Martin N Rossor; Jason D Warren; Nick C Fox; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon; Sandra E Black; Marsel Mesulam; Sandra Weintraub; Brad C Dickerson; Janine Diehl-Schmid; Florence Pasquier; Vincent Deramecourt; Florence Lebert; Yolande Pijnenburg; Tiffany W Chow; Facundo Manes; Jordan Grafman; Stefano F Cappa; Morris Freedman; Murray Grossman; Bruce L Miller Journal: Brain Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Yannick Vermeiren; Debby Van Dam; Tony Aerts; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Jean-Jacques Martin; Peter P De Deyn Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Gilles P Squelard; Pierre A Missotten; Louis Paquay; Jan De Lepeleire; Frank J V M Buntinx; Ovide Fontaine; Stephane R Adam; Michel J D Ylieff Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 4.458