OBJECTIVE: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) has been proposed to comprise 3 discrete clinical subtypes: semantic, agrammatic/nonfluent, and logopenic. Recent consensus recommendations suggest a diagnostic framework based primarily on clinical and neuropsychological findings to classify these variants. Our objective was to evaluate the extent to which patients with PPA would conform to the proposed tripartite system and whether the clustering pattern of elements of the linguistic profile suggests discrete clinical syndromes. METHODS: A total of 46 patients with PPA were prospectively recruited to the Cambridge Longitudinal Study of PPA. Sufficient data were collected to assess all consensus-proposed diagnostic domains. By comparing patients' performances against those of 30 age- and education-matched healthy volunteers, z scores were calculated, and values of 1.5 SDs outside control participants' means were considered abnormal. Raw test scores were used to undertake a principal factor analysis to identify the clustering pattern of individual measures. RESULTS: Of the patients, 28.3%, 26.1%, and 4.3% fitted semantic, nonfluent/agrammatic, and logopenic categories respectively, and 41.3% did not fulfill the diagnostic recommendations for any of the 3 proposed variants. There was no significant between-group difference in age, education, or disease duration. Furthermore, the outcome of the factor analysis was in keeping with discrete semantic and nonfluent/agrammatic syndromes but did not support a logopenic variant. CONCLUSION: Taken together, the results of this prospective data-driven study suggest that although a substantial proportion of patients with PPA have neither the semantic nor the nonfluent variants, they do not necessarily conform to a discrete logopenic variant.
OBJECTIVE:Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) has been proposed to comprise 3 discrete clinical subtypes: semantic, agrammatic/nonfluent, and logopenic. Recent consensus recommendations suggest a diagnostic framework based primarily on clinical and neuropsychological findings to classify these variants. Our objective was to evaluate the extent to which patients with PPA would conform to the proposed tripartite system and whether the clustering pattern of elements of the linguistic profile suggests discrete clinical syndromes. METHODS: A total of 46 patients with PPA were prospectively recruited to the Cambridge Longitudinal Study of PPA. Sufficient data were collected to assess all consensus-proposed diagnostic domains. By comparing patients' performances against those of 30 age- and education-matched healthy volunteers, z scores were calculated, and values of 1.5 SDs outside control participants' means were considered abnormal. Raw test scores were used to undertake a principal factor analysis to identify the clustering pattern of individual measures. RESULTS: Of the patients, 28.3%, 26.1%, and 4.3% fitted semantic, nonfluent/agrammatic, and logopenic categories respectively, and 41.3% did not fulfill the diagnostic recommendations for any of the 3 proposed variants. There was no significant between-group difference in age, education, or disease duration. Furthermore, the outcome of the factor analysis was in keeping with discrete semantic and nonfluent/agrammatic syndromes but did not support a logopenic variant. CONCLUSION: Taken together, the results of this prospective data-driven study suggest that although a substantial proportion of patients with PPA have neither the semantic nor the nonfluent variants, they do not necessarily conform to a discrete logopenic variant.
Authors: M L Gorno-Tempini; A E Hillis; S Weintraub; A Kertesz; M Mendez; S F Cappa; J M Ogar; J D Rohrer; S Black; B F Boeve; F Manes; N F Dronkers; R Vandenberghe; K Rascovsky; K Patterson; B L Miller; D S Knopman; J R Hodges; M M Mesulam; M Grossman Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Li Xiong; John H Xuereb; Maria Grazia Spillantini; Karalyn Patterson; John R Hodges; Peter J Nestor Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2010-09-14 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Jason E Osher; Alissa H Wicklund; Alfred Rademaker; Nancy Johnson; Sandra Weintraub Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2007 Dec-2008 Jan Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Nina F Dronkers; Katherine P Rankin; Jennifer M Ogar; La Phengrasamy; Howard J Rosen; Julene K Johnson; Michael W Weiner; Bruce L Miller Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: M Grossman; J Mickanin; K Onishi; E Hughes; M D'Esposito; X S Ding; A Alavi; M Reivich Journal: J Cogn Neurosci Date: 1996 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Keith A Josephs; Joseph R Duffy; Edythe A Strand; Mary M Machulda; Matthew L Senjem; Val J Lowe; Clifford R Jack; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Joseph R Duffy; Holly Hanley; Rene Utianski; Heather Clark; Edythe Strand; Keith A Josephs; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: Brain Lang Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 2.381