19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Automated profiling of spontaneous speech in primary progressive aphasia and behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia: An approach based on usage-frequency

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Language production provides important markers of neurological health. One feature of impairments of language and cognition, such as those that occur in stroke aphasia or Alzheimer's disease, is an overuse of high frequency, "familiar" expressions. We used computerized analysis to profile narrative speech samples from speakers with variants of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), including subtypes of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Analysis was performed on language samples from 29 speakers with semantic variant PPA (svPPA), 25 speakers with logopenic variant PPA (lvPPA), 34 speakers with non-fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA), 14 speakers with behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD) and 20 older normal controls (NCs). We used frequency and collocation strength measures to determine use of familiar words and word combinations. We also computed word counts, content word ratio and a combination ratio, a measure of the degree to which the individual produces connected language. All dementia subtypes differed significantly from NCs. The most discriminating variables were word count, combination ratio, and content word ratio, each of which distinguished at least one dementia group from NCs. All participants with PPA, but not participants with bvFTD, produced significantly more frequent forms at the level of content words, word combinations, or both. Each dementia group differed from the others on at least one variable, and language production variables correlated with established behavioral measures of disease progression. A machine learning classifier, using narrative speech variables, achieved 90% accuracy when classifying samples as NC or dementia, and 59.4% accuracy when matching samples to their diagnostic group. Automated quantification of spontaneous speech in both language-led and non-language led dementias, is feasible. It allows extraction of syndromic profiles that complement those derived from standardized tests, warranting further evaluation as candidate biomarkers. Inclusion of frequency-based language variables benefits profiling and classification.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            “Mini-mental state”

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia.

              Based on the recent literature and collective experience, an international consortium developed revised guidelines for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. The validation process retrospectively reviewed clinical records and compared the sensitivity of proposed and earlier criteria in a multi-site sample of patients with pathologically verified frontotemporal lobar degeneration. According to the revised criteria, 'possible' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia requires three of six clinically discriminating features (disinhibition, apathy/inertia, loss of sympathy/empathy, perseverative/compulsive behaviours, hyperorality and dysexecutive neuropsychological profile). 'Probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia adds functional disability and characteristic neuroimaging, while behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia 'with definite frontotemporal lobar degeneration' requires histopathological confirmation or a pathogenic mutation. Sixteen brain banks contributed cases meeting histopathological criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and a clinical diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies or vascular dementia at presentation. Cases with predominant primary progressive aphasia or extra-pyramidal syndromes were excluded. In these autopsy-confirmed cases, an experienced neurologist or psychiatrist ascertained clinical features necessary for making a diagnosis according to previous and proposed criteria at presentation. Of 137 cases where features were available for both proposed and previously established criteria, 118 (86%) met 'possible' criteria, and 104 (76%) met criteria for 'probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. In contrast, 72 cases (53%) met previously established criteria for the syndrome (P < 0.001 for comparison with 'possible' and 'probable' criteria). Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. In conclusion, the revised criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia improve diagnostic accuracy compared with previously established criteria in a sample with known frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Greater sensitivity of the proposed criteria may reflect the optimized diagnostic features, less restrictive exclusion features and a flexible structure that accommodates different initial clinical presentations. Future studies will be needed to establish the reliability and specificity of these revised diagnostic guidelines.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Cortex
                Cortex
                Elsevier BV
                00109452
                December 2020
                December 2020
                : 133
                : 103-119
                Article
                10.1016/j.cortex.2020.08.027
                33120189
                dbbed5db-3bfa-4095-844f-bdd4b434cf51
                © 2020

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article