4.6 Article

Are Frontal Cognitive and Atrophy Patterns Different in PSP and bvFTD? A Comparative Neuropsychological and VBM Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080353

关键词

-

资金

  1. JNLF
  2. INSERM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD) are two clinicohistological entities that share a severe prefrontal syndrome. To what extent do the cognitive syndrome and the location of the underlying brain atrophy unify or segregate these entities? Here, we examined the clinical and radiological patterns of frontal involvement and the neural bases of the cognitive dysfunctions observed in the Richardson form of PSP and the behavioral variant of FTD (bvFTD). The cognitive profile and grey and white matter volume of PSP (n = 19) and bvFTD (n = 16) patients and control participants (n = 18) were compared using a standard battery of neuropsychological tests and voxel-based morphometry (VBM), respectively. Analyses of correlations between neuropsychological and morphometric data were additionally performed. The severity and qualitative pattern of cognitive dysfunction was globally similar between the two patient groups. Grey matter volume was decreased in widespread frontal areas and in the temporal uncus in bvFTD, while it was decreased in the frontal and temporal lobes as well as in the thalamus in PSP. We also found an unexpected involvement of the frontal rectal gyrus in PSP patients compared to controls. Correlation analyses yielded different results in the two groups, with no area showing significant correlations in PSP patients, while several frontal and some temporal areas did so in bvFTD patients. In spite of minor neuropsychological and morphological differences, this study shows that the patterns of cognitive dysfunction and atrophy are very similar in PSP and bvFTD. However, executive dysfunction in these diseases may stem from partially divergent cortical and subcortical neural circuits.

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