4.6 Article

The Semantic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia: Clinical and Neuroimaging Evidence in Single Subjects

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120197

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aim We present a clinical-neuroimaging study in a series of patients with a clinical diagnosis of semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia (svPPA), with the aim to provide clinical-functional correlations of the cognitive and behavioral manifestations at the single-subject level. Methods We performed neuropsychological investigations, F-18-FDG-PET single-subject and group analysis, with an optimized SPM voxel-based approach, and correlation analyses. A measurement of white matter integrity by means of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) was also available for a subgroup of patients. Results Cognitive assessment confirmed the presence of typical semantic memory deficits in all patients, with a relative sparing of executive, attentional, visuo-constructional, and episodic memory domains. F-18-FDG-PET showed a consistent pattern of cerebral hypometabolism across all patients, which correlated with performance in semantic memory tasks. In addition, a majority of patients also presented with behavioral disturbances associated with metabolic dysfunction in limbic structures. In a subgroup of cases the DTI analysis showed FA abnormalities in the inferior longitudinal and uncinate fasciculi. Discussion Each svPPA individual had functional derangement involving an extended, connected system within the left temporal lobe, a crucial part of the verbal semantic network, as well as an involvement of limbic structures. The latter was associated with behavioral manifestations and extended beyond the area of atrophy shown by CT scan. Conclusion Single-subject F-18-FDG-PET analysis can account for both cognitive and behavioral alterations in svPPA. This provides useful support to the clinical diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据