Premium
O1‐03‐05: The relationship between a novel test of semantic interference (LASSI‐L) and global and regional accumulation of amyloid in the brains of community‐dwelling elders
Author(s) -
Loewenstein David,
Curiel Rosie E.,
Greig-Custo Marian,
Crocco Elizabeth,
Rodriquez Rosemarie,
Barker Warren W.,
Rosado Marian,
Duara Ranjan
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2015.07.043
Subject(s) - precuneus , posterior cingulate , psychology , neuropsychology , hippocampus , cognition , medicine , neuroscience
and potentially categorize the three different variants of PPA. Methods: The PARIS is scored over a total of 55 and administered in 10 minutes. It is made of 9 sections: designation, denomination, single word repetition, sentence repetition, facial-oral apraxia testing, 1 minute categorical and lexical fluencies, writing and reading of irregular words, verb grammar testing. Eighteen patients with PPA (8 Semantic, 9 Logopenic and 1 Agrammatical), 16 patients with Typical AD and 27 aged-matched cognitively healthy controls (HC) were consecutively included in the study. The cognitive battery included: MMSE, FAB, LAST, ART, PARIS (performed by neuropsychologists and medical practitioners) and the Boston Diagnosis Aphasia Evaluation (BDAE, which was performed by speech specialists). Each group’s performances were compared and the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) were calculated for each language test. Results: Patients with AD and PPA had significantly worse results than HC in all three language tests. Only the PARIS was however able to distinguish between AD and PPA (p < 0,01), the latter group performing worse. The optimum PARIS total score cutoff to diagnose PPA was found to be 47 (Se 94,44%, Sp 96%). Analyzing the various PARIS sections allowed us to classify semantic and logopenic PPA based on different patterns of impairment. Conclusions: PARIS seems to be an efficient and rapid language test for the diagnosis of PPA. Hence, this test can be valuable to include patients with PPA in clinical and therapeutical trials.