Meredith R Wicklund1, Joseph R Duffy, Edythe A Strand, Mary M Machulda, Jennifer L Whitwell, Keith A Josephs. 1. From the Division of Behavioral Neurology (M.R.W., K.A.J.), Speech Pathology, Department of Neurology (J.R.D., E.A.S.), Division of Neurocognitive Disorders, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology (M.M.M.), and Division of Radiology Research, Department of Radiology (J.L.W.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how well the consensus criteria could classify subjects with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) using a quantitative speech and language battery that matches the test descriptions provided by the consensus criteria. METHODS: A total of 105 participants with a neurodegenerative speech and language disorder were prospectively recruited and underwent neurologic, neuropsychological, and speech and language testing and MRI in this case-control study. Twenty-one participants with apraxia of speech without aphasia served as controls. Select tests from the speech and language battery were chosen for application of consensus criteria and cutoffs were employed to determine syndromic classification. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to examine participants who could not be classified. RESULTS: Of the 84 participants, 58 (69%) could be classified as agrammatic (27%), semantic (7%), or logopenic (35%) variants of PPA. The remaining 31% of participants could not be classified. Of the unclassifiable participants, 2 clusters were identified. The speech and language profile of the first cluster resembled mild logopenic PPA and the second cluster semantic PPA. Gray matter patterns of loss of these 2 clusters of unclassified participants also resembled mild logopenic and semantic variants. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative application of consensus PPA criteria yields the 3 syndromic variants but leaves a large proportion unclassified. Therefore, the current consensus criteria need to be modified in order to improve sensitivity.
OBJECTIVE: To determine how well the consensus criteria could classify subjects with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) using a quantitative speech and language battery that matches the test descriptions provided by the consensus criteria. METHODS: A total of 105 participants with a neurodegenerative speech and language disorder were prospectively recruited and underwent neurologic, neuropsychological, and speech and language testing and MRI in this case-control study. Twenty-one participants with apraxia of speech without aphasia served as controls. Select tests from the speech and language battery were chosen for application of consensus criteria and cutoffs were employed to determine syndromic classification. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to examine participants who could not be classified. RESULTS: Of the 84 participants, 58 (69%) could be classified as agrammatic (27%), semantic (7%), or logopenic (35%) variants of PPA. The remaining 31% of participants could not be classified. Of the unclassifiable participants, 2 clusters were identified. The speech and language profile of the first cluster resembled mild logopenic PPA and the second cluster semantic PPA. Gray matter patterns of loss of these 2 clusters of unclassified participants also resembled mild logopenic and semantic variants. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative application of consensus PPA criteria yields the 3 syndromic variants but leaves a large proportion unclassified. Therefore, the current consensus criteria need to be modified in order to improve sensitivity.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
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: D I Kaufer; J L Cummings; P Ketchel; V Smith; A MacMillan; T Shelley; O L Lopez; S T DeKosky Journal: J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.198
Authors: Christopher G Goetz; Barbara C Tilley; Stephanie R Shaftman; Glenn T Stebbins; Stanley Fahn; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Werner Poewe; Cristina Sampaio; Matthew B Stern; Richard Dodel; Bruno Dubois; Robert Holloway; Joseph Jankovic; Jaime Kulisevsky; Anthony E Lang; Andrew Lees; Sue Leurgans; Peter A LeWitt; David Nyenhuis; C Warren Olanow; Olivier Rascol; Anette Schrag; Jeanne A Teresi; Jacobus J van Hilten; Nancy LaPelle Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2008-11-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Keith A Josephs; Joseph R Duffy; Edythe A Strand; Mary M Machulda; Matthew L Senjem; Ankit V Master; Val J Lowe; Clifford R Jack; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: Brain Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Alissa M Butts; Mary M Machulda; Joseph R Duffy; Edythe A Strand; Jennifer L Whitwell; Keith A Josephs Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Miguel A Santos-Santos; Gil D Rabinovici; Leonardo Iaccarino; Nagehan Ayakta; Gautam Tammewar; Iryna Lobach; Maya L Henry; Isabel Hubbard; Maria Luisa Mandelli; Edoardo Spinelli; Zachary A Miller; Peter S Pressman; James P O'Neil; Pia Ghosh; Andreas Lazaris; Marita Meyer; Christa Watson; Soo Jin Yoon; Howard J Rosen; Lea Grinberg; William W Seeley; Bruce L Miller; William J Jagust; Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Eoin P Flanagan; Matthew C Baker; Ralph B Perkerson; Joseph R Duffy; Edythe A Strand; Jennifer L Whitwell; Mary M Machulda; Rosa Rademakers; Keith A Josephs Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2015-02-28 Impact factor: 2.959