Comparative analysis of cognitive function and neuropsychiatric behavior between Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences of cognitive impairment and neuropsychiatric behavior disturbances between Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) patients, as well as their relationships with dementia severity. Methods A total of 38 FTD patients and 46 AD patients were recruited in this study．The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were used to evaluate the degree of cognitive impairments. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire Form (NPI) and Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI) were used to measure behavioral disturbances. The 21-items Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) was used to evaluate the mental or emotional state of patients. Clinical dementia rating scale (CDR) was used to divide the dementia severity. Results FTD patients were younger （(70.13±8.36) years vs (66.46±7.04) years, t=2.124，P=0.037), earlier at age of onset ((68.58±8.51) years vs (64.43±6.82) years, t=2.396， P=0.019), with lower MoCA scores (12.50（8.00， 16.25）vs 17.00（10.75， 21.00）, Z=-2.428, P=0.015), higher NPI (15.00（7.00，25.50）vs 9.50（4.00，17.75）, Z=-2.251, P=0.024), FBI (21.00（13.00，27.00）vs 16.00（10.75，23.00）, Z=-2.159, P=0.031), FBI-A (13.00 （8.00，16.00）vs 9.00（6.00，12.00） Z=-2.159, P=0.041), FBI-B (9.00（7.00，14.00） vs 7.00（3.00，11.00）, Z=-2.051, P=0.040) and HAMD-21 scores (7.00（2.75，14.00）vs 5.00 （3.00，8.00）， Z=-2.061, P=0.039). A detail analysis of different cognitive domains showed the executive functions (Z=-2.140, P=0.032), language (Z=-3.357, P=0.001), abstraction (Z=-2.498, P=0.012) and delayed recall (Z=-4.317, P=0.000) of the MoCA scale were lower in FTD patients than that in AD patients, while AD patients had lower scores in memory（Z=-1.999, P=0.046） and orientation（Z=-2.941, P=0.003）of the MMSE scale. Within the subscale scores of the NPI, the agitation (Z=-3.255, P=0.001), disinhibition (Z=-3.093, P=0.002) and irritability (Z=-2.214, P=0.027) scores were higher in FTD patients than in AD patients. The total scores of NPI (r=0.279, P=0.010), FBI (r=0.353, P=0.001), FBI-A (r=0.386, P=0.000) and FBI-B (r=0.273, P=0.012) were positively correlated with the CDR scores, whereas MoCA scores were negatively correlated with the CDR scores (r=-0.760, P=0.000). The subscale scores on MoCA and NPI areas changed corresponding with dementia severity in both groups. Conclusions The cognitive function, behavioral and psychological symptoms between FTD and AD patients are different. FTD patients have poorer executive function, language, abstraction and delayed recall ability, whereas AD patients perform worse in memory and orientation. With the progression of the disease, FTD patients gradually emerged disorientation, while the cognitive impairment in AD patients almost affected all the areas. FTD patients are more likely to have agitation, disinhibition and irritability behavior, and AD patients are more likely to have depression in the late stage. Dynamic evaluation of the cognitive function, behavioral and psychological symptoms in clinical practice can help to distinguish FTD and AD. Key words: Frontotemporal dementia; Alzheimer disease; Cognition disorders; Conduct disorder; Severity of illness index; Diagnosis, differential
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».