比较迷你语言状态检查、Addenbrooke 认知检查和 Depistage Cognitif de Quebec 对诊断原发性进行性失语症的准确性。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1177/13872877241284199
Lucía Fernández-Romero, Florentina Morello-García, Robert Laforce, Cristina Delgado-Alonso, Alfonso Delgado-Álvarez, María José Gil-Moreno, Monica Lavoie, Jorge Matias-Guiu, Fernando Cuetos, Jordi A Matias-Guiu
{"title":"比较迷你语言状态检查、Addenbrooke 认知检查和 Depistage Cognitif de Quebec 对诊断原发性进行性失语症的准确性。","authors":"Lucía Fernández-Romero, Florentina Morello-García, Robert Laforce, Cristina Delgado-Alonso, Alfonso Delgado-Álvarez, María José Gil-Moreno, Monica Lavoie, Jorge Matias-Guiu, Fernando Cuetos, Jordi A Matias-Guiu","doi":"10.1177/13872877241284199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical diagnosis in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is challenging. Recently, emphasis has been placed on the importance of screening evaluation. Three different screening tests that use different strategies based on the assessment of language (Mini-Linguistic State Examination, MLSE) or different cognitive domains (Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, ACE-III and Dépistage Cognitif de Québec, DCQ) have been proposed and independently validated. These tests aim to detect PPA and classify into the three main variants (non-fluent (nfvPPA), semantic (svPPA) and logopenic (lvPPA)).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate and compare the diagnostic capacity of these three instruments in PPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study including 43 patients with PPA (nfvPPA (<i>n</i> = 19), svPPA (<i>n</i> = 8), and lvPPA (<i>n</i> = 16)) and 21 cognitively unimpaired controls was conducted. Clinical diagnoses were established based on an extensive multidisciplinary assessment including neuropsychological assessment, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, MRI, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. Both PPA patients and controls completed the three tests (MLSE, ACE-III, and DCQ).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Internal consistency was excellent for the three tests. The area under the curve for the diagnosis of PPA was 0.950 for MLSE, 0.953 for ACE-III, and 0.933 for DCQ. Correlations between the three tests were high. The MLSE, ACE-III, and DCQ tests obtained adequate levels of discrimination between the variants of PPA, with accuracies between 76-79%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirms the validity of ACE-III, MLSE, and DCQ for the diagnosis of PPA and its variants. This suggests that detailed assessment of linguistic characteristics (MLSE) and non-linguistic features (DCQ, ACE-III) are relevant for the diagnosis and classification of PPA.</p>","PeriodicalId":14929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","volume":"102 1","pages":"67-76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative accuracy of Mini-Linguistic State Examination, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, and Depistage Cognitif de Quebec for the diagnosis of primary progressive aphasia.\",\"authors\":\"Lucía Fernández-Romero, Florentina Morello-García, Robert Laforce, Cristina Delgado-Alonso, Alfonso Delgado-Álvarez, María José Gil-Moreno, Monica Lavoie, Jorge Matias-Guiu, Fernando Cuetos, Jordi A Matias-Guiu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13872877241284199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical diagnosis in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is challenging. Recently, emphasis has been placed on the importance of screening evaluation. Three different screening tests that use different strategies based on the assessment of language (Mini-Linguistic State Examination, MLSE) or different cognitive domains (Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, ACE-III and Dépistage Cognitif de Québec, DCQ) have been proposed and independently validated. These tests aim to detect PPA and classify into the three main variants (non-fluent (nfvPPA), semantic (svPPA) and logopenic (lvPPA)).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to evaluate and compare the diagnostic capacity of these three instruments in PPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional study including 43 patients with PPA (nfvPPA (<i>n</i> = 19), svPPA (<i>n</i> = 8), and lvPPA (<i>n</i> = 16)) and 21 cognitively unimpaired controls was conducted. Clinical diagnoses were established based on an extensive multidisciplinary assessment including neuropsychological assessment, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, MRI, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. Both PPA patients and controls completed the three tests (MLSE, ACE-III, and DCQ).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Internal consistency was excellent for the three tests. The area under the curve for the diagnosis of PPA was 0.950 for MLSE, 0.953 for ACE-III, and 0.933 for DCQ. Correlations between the three tests were high. The MLSE, ACE-III, and DCQ tests obtained adequate levels of discrimination between the variants of PPA, with accuracies between 76-79%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirms the validity of ACE-III, MLSE, and DCQ for the diagnosis of PPA and its variants. This suggests that detailed assessment of linguistic characteristics (MLSE) and non-linguistic features (DCQ, ACE-III) are relevant for the diagnosis and classification of PPA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"volume\":\"102 1\",\"pages\":\"67-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877241284199\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Alzheimer's Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13872877241284199","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:原发性进行性失语症(PPA)的临床诊断具有挑战性。最近,人们开始强调筛查评估的重要性。目前已提出三种不同的筛查测试,这些测试采用不同的策略,分别基于语言评估(迷你语言状态检查,MLSE)或不同的认知领域(Addenbrooke 认知检查,ACE-III 和 Dépistage Cognitif de Québec, DCQ),并经过独立验证。这些测试旨在检测 PPA,并将其分为三种主要变体(非流利型(nfvPPA)、语义型(svPPA)和对数开放型(lvPPA)):本研究旨在评估和比较这三种工具对 PPA 的诊断能力:这项横断面研究包括 43 名 PPA 患者(nfvPPA(19 人)、svPPA(8 人)和 lvPPA(16 人))和 21 名认知功能未受损的对照组。临床诊断基于广泛的多学科评估,包括神经心理学评估、氟脱氧葡萄糖正电子发射断层扫描、核磁共振成像和脑脊液生物标志物。PPA 患者和对照组均完成了三项测试(MLSE、ACE-III 和 DCQ):结果:三项测试的内部一致性非常好。MLSE 的 PPA 诊断曲线下面积为 0.950,ACE-III 为 0.953,DCQ 为 0.933。三项测试之间的相关性很高。MLSE、ACE-III和DCQ测试对PPA变异体的鉴别能力足够高,准确率在76%-79%之间:本研究证实了 ACE-III、MLSE 和 DCQ 在诊断 PPA 及其变体方面的有效性。这表明,对语言特点(MLSE)和非语言特点(DCQ、ACE-III)的详细评估与 PPA 的诊断和分类相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative accuracy of Mini-Linguistic State Examination, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, and Depistage Cognitif de Quebec for the diagnosis of primary progressive aphasia.

Background: Clinical diagnosis in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is challenging. Recently, emphasis has been placed on the importance of screening evaluation. Three different screening tests that use different strategies based on the assessment of language (Mini-Linguistic State Examination, MLSE) or different cognitive domains (Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination, ACE-III and Dépistage Cognitif de Québec, DCQ) have been proposed and independently validated. These tests aim to detect PPA and classify into the three main variants (non-fluent (nfvPPA), semantic (svPPA) and logopenic (lvPPA)).

Objective: This study aims to evaluate and compare the diagnostic capacity of these three instruments in PPA.

Methods: A cross-sectional study including 43 patients with PPA (nfvPPA (n = 19), svPPA (n = 8), and lvPPA (n = 16)) and 21 cognitively unimpaired controls was conducted. Clinical diagnoses were established based on an extensive multidisciplinary assessment including neuropsychological assessment, fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, MRI, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. Both PPA patients and controls completed the three tests (MLSE, ACE-III, and DCQ).

Results: Internal consistency was excellent for the three tests. The area under the curve for the diagnosis of PPA was 0.950 for MLSE, 0.953 for ACE-III, and 0.933 for DCQ. Correlations between the three tests were high. The MLSE, ACE-III, and DCQ tests obtained adequate levels of discrimination between the variants of PPA, with accuracies between 76-79%.

Conclusions: This study confirms the validity of ACE-III, MLSE, and DCQ for the diagnosis of PPA and its variants. This suggests that detailed assessment of linguistic characteristics (MLSE) and non-linguistic features (DCQ, ACE-III) are relevant for the diagnosis and classification of PPA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
1327
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Alzheimer''s Disease (JAD) is an international multidisciplinary journal to facilitate progress in understanding the etiology, pathogenesis, epidemiology, genetics, behavior, treatment and psychology of Alzheimer''s disease. The journal publishes research reports, reviews, short communications, hypotheses, ethics reviews, book reviews, and letters-to-the-editor. The journal is dedicated to providing an open forum for original research that will expedite our fundamental understanding of Alzheimer''s disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信