4.5 Article

The differentiation of mild frontotemporal dementia from Alzheimer's disease and healthy aging by neuropsychological tests

Journal

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 57-68

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610204000778

Keywords

cognition; memory; executive; frontal; diagnosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is difficult to diagnose in the early stages and may be misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's disease (AD) or as a psychiatric disorder. This study aimed to investigate neuropsychological function in FTD of mild severity and compare it to that of mild AD and healthy control participants. Methods: The study comprised 11 individuals with FTD, 29 with AD and 27 healthy controls. Participants completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment in which each area of cognitive function was examined with several widely used clinical tests. Test scores were converted to age-corrected scaled scores and combined to form indices for six areas of cognitive function. These indices were attention, psychomotor speed, memory acquisition, memory recall, executive function and constructional ability. Results: The FTD group performed below the level of the controls in all areas except constructional ability. FTD and AD groups showed distinct patterns of neuropsychological performance. The FTD group showed predominantly executive dysfunction with less impaired memory function, while the AD group showed the opposite pattern. The capacity of the tests to discriminate between groups was good overall, with 90% of the total sample correctly classified. Predictive success for the FTD group was 64%, given a base rate of 16%. Conclusion: Administration of a comprehensive neuropsychological protocol including several tests of executive function allows increased certainty about accurate clinical diagnosis of mild FTD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available