Literature DB >> 34742101

Task performance to discriminate among variants of primary progressive aphasia.

Melissa D Stockbridge1, Donna C Tippett2, Bonnie L Breining3, Emilia Vitti3, Argye E Hillis4.   

Abstract

Primary progressive aphasia can be distinguished into one of three variants: semantic, non-fluent/agrammatic, and logopenic. While a considerable body of work exists characterizing each variant, few prior studies have addressed the problem of optimizing behavioral assessment in a typical outpatient evaluation setting. Our aim is to examine the sensitivity and specificity of a battery of cognitive and linguistic assessments and determine optimal scores for distinguishing patients' subtype based on these instruments. This was a retrospective analysis of outpatient clinical testing of individuals with known or suspected primary progressive aphasia. Evaluations included the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center frontotemporal lobar degeneration module and additional measures of naming, semantic association, word verification, and picture description. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to examine the utility of each task in distinguishing each variant from the others. Logistic regressions were used to examine the combined utility of tasks for distinguishing a given subtype. We examined 435 evaluations of 222 patients retrospectively. The battery was most consistent in distinguishing semantic variant by low scores and non-fluent/agrammatic variant by high scores on a similar subset of tasks. Tasks best distinguishing semantic variant produced a model that correctly classified 86% of cases. Tasks best distinguishing non-fluent/agrammatic variant correctly classified 77% of cases. The battery of tasks was weakest in identifying logopenic variant; only the ratio of sentence reading to sentence repetition performance was identified as a reasonable predictor, and it had predictive accuracy of 67%. Naming assessments were the strongest basis for distinguishing all variants, particularly semantic variant from non-fluent/agrammatic variant. These data illustrate that a number of commonly used assessments perform at chance in distinguishing variant and preliminarily support an abbreviated battery that marginally favors tools not currently included in the frontotemporal lobar degeneration module.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aphasia; Dementia; Evaluation; Language

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34742101      PMCID: PMC8633174          DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2021.09.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cortex        ISSN: 0010-9452            Impact factor:   4.644


  25 in total

1.  The Youden Index and the optimal cut-point corrected for measurement error.

Authors:  Neil J Perkins; Enrique F Schisterman
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.207

2.  Frontal behavioral inventory: diagnostic criteria for frontal lobe dementia.

Authors:  A Kertesz; W Davidson; H Fox
Journal:  Can J Neurol Sci       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.104

3.  Verb production in the nonfluent and semantic variants of primary progressive aphasia: the influence of lexical and semantic factors.

Authors:  Karine Marcotte; Naida L Graham; Sandra E Black; David Tang-Wai; Tiffany W Chow; Morris Freedman; Elizabeth Rochon; Carol Leonard
Journal:  Cogn Neuropsychol       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Grammatical Impairments in PPA.

Authors:  Cynthia K Thompson; Jennifer E Mack
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.773

5.  Speech errors in progressive non-fluent aphasia.

Authors:  Sharon Ash; Corey McMillan; Delani Gunawardena; Brian Avants; Brianna Morgan; Alea Khan; Peachie Moore; James Gee; Murray Grossman
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 2.381

6.  Dissociating nouns and verbs in temporal and perisylvian networks: Evidence from neurodegenerative diseases.

Authors:  Sladjana Lukic; Valentina Borghesani; Elizabeth Weis; Ariane Welch; Rian Bogley; John Neuhaus; Jessica Deleon; Zachary A Miller; Joel H Kramer; Bruce L Miller; Nina F Dronkers; Maria L Gorno-Tempini
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 4.027

Review 7.  Assessment of Individuals with Primary Progressive Aphasia.

Authors:  Maya L Henry; Stephanie M Grasso
Journal:  Semin Speech Lang       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 1.761

8.  Verb and noun deficits in stroke-induced and primary progressive aphasia: The Northwestern Naming Battery().

Authors:  Cynthia K Thompson; Sladjana Lukic; Monique C King; M Marsel Mesulam; Sandra Weintraub
Journal:  Aphasiology       Date:  2012-05-10       Impact factor: 2.773

9.  Clustering Analysis of FDG-PET Imaging in Primary Progressive Aphasia.

Authors:  Jordi A Matias-Guiu; Josefa Díaz-Álvarez; José Luis Ayala; José Luis Risco-Martín; Teresa Moreno-Ramos; Vanesa Pytel; Jorge Matias-Guiu; José Luis Carreras; María Nieves Cabrera-Martín
Journal:  Front Aging Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 5.750

Review 10.  Clinical, Anatomical, and Pathological Features in the Three Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Review.

Authors:  Maxime Montembeault; Simona M Brambati; Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Raffaella Migliaccio
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 4.003

View more
  2 in total

1.  Regression-Based Normative Data for Independent and Cognitively Active Spanish Older Adults: Verbal Fluency Tests and Boston Naming Test.

Authors:  Clara Iñesta; Javier Oltra-Cucarella; Esther Sitges-Maciá
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-09-11       Impact factor: 4.614

2.  Case Report: Semantic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia Associated With Anti-Glial Fibrillary Acid Protein Autoantibodies.

Authors:  Niels Hansen; Winfried Stöcker; Jens Wiltfang; Claudia Bartels; Kristin Rentzsch; Caroline Bouter
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 7.561

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.