作者@article {Sajjadi1670 = {S.A.Sajjadi和k·帕特森和R.J.阿诺德和电脑沃森和P.J.内斯特},标题={原发性进行性失语},体积={78}={21},页面= {1670 - 1677}= {2012},doi = {10.1212 / WNL。出版商0 b013e3182574f79} = {Wolters Kluwer健康,公司代表美国神经病学学会},文摘={目的:原发性进行性失语(PPA)提出了包含三个离散的临床亚型:语义,agr首页ammatic /迟滞型和logopenic。最近的共识建议表明诊断框架主要是基于临床和神经心理学的发现对这些变量进行分类。我们的目标是评估PPA患者会在多大程度上符合提出三方系统和元素的聚类模式是否语言配置文件的显示离散的临床综合症。方法:总共有46名PPA患者前瞻性招募PPA的剑桥纵向研究。收集足够的数据来评估所有consensus-proposed诊断领域。通过比较患者{\ textquoteright}表演对30岁-和education-matched健康志愿者,z分数计算,和值1.5 SDs外控制参与者{\ textquoteright}意味着被认为是异常。生考试成绩被用来进行主因素分析来识别个人的聚类模式的措施。结果:患者28.3 \ % 26.1 \ %,和4.3 \ %的语义,迟滞型/ agrammatic和logopenic类别分别和41.3 \ %没有满足诊断建议3提出的变体。 There was no significant between-group difference in age, education, or disease duration. Furthermore, the outcome of the factor analysis was in keeping with discrete semantic and nonfluent/agrammatic syndromes but did not support a logopenic variant. Conclusion: Taken together, the results of this prospective data-driven study suggest that although a substantial proportion of patients with PPA have neither the semantic nor the nonfluent variants, they do not necessarily conform to a discrete logopenic variant. lvPPA=logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia; nfvPPA=nonfluent/agrammatic variant of primary progressive aphasia; PPA=primary progressive aphasia; svPPA=semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia}, issn = {0028-3878}, URL = {//www.ez-admanager.com/content/78/21/1670}, eprint = {//www.ez-admanager.com/content/78/21/1670.full.pdf}, journal = {Neurology} }