Search

Purpose This study investigated the relationship between word production rates (WPRs) and phonological error rates (PERs) in generative and responsive tasks in logopenic progressive aphasia (lvPPA). We examined whether a portion of the reduced WPR during generative tasks related directly to phonological impairments affecting PER on all tasks, irrespective of other task differences that contributed to WPR. Method Two cognitive psychometric models were hypothesized and fit to the total number of words produced and the number of phonological errors produced by 22 participants on 10 tasks. Bayesian inference was used to construct posterior distributions of participant ability and task difficulty parameters. Model fit statistics were compared. Association strengths for average generative WPR and average responsive PER were also evaluated with linear least-squares regression. Results Average generative WPR and average responsive PER were significantly associated (r = -.77, p = .00002). A cognitive psychometric model that assumed reduced WPR on generative tasks reflects a portion of general phonological impairment yielded better fit than a model that ignored performance differences between generative and responsive tasks. Generative fluency tasks that elicited few phonological errors still reflected phonological impairment, via suppression. Individual participants were estimated to suppress between 62% and 93% of phonological errors on generative tasks that would have emerged on responsive tasks. Conclusions Suppression of phonological errors may present as decreased WPR on generative tasks in lvPPA. Failure to account for this suppression tendency may lead to overestimation of phonological ability. The findings indicate the need to account for task demands in assessing lvPPA.

A paucity of chemotherapeutic options for metastatic brain cancer limits patient survival and portends poor clinical outcomes. Using a CNS small-molecule inhibitor library of 320 agents known to be blood-brain barrier permeable and approved by the FDA, we interrogated breast cancer brain metastasis vulnerabilities to identify an effective agent. Metixene, an antiparkinsonian drug, was identified as a top therapeutic agent that was capable of decreasing cellular viability and inducing cell death across different metastatic breast cancer subtypes. This agent significantly reduced mammary tumor size in orthotopic xenograft assays and improved survival in an intracardiac model of multiorgan site metastases. Metixene further extended survival in mice bearing intracranial xenografts and in an intracarotid mouse model of multiple brain metastases. Functional analysis revealed that metixene induced incomplete autophagy through N-Myc downstream regulated 1 (NDRG1) phosphorylation, thereby leading to caspase-mediated apoptosis in both primary and brain-metastatic cells, regardless of cancer subtype or origin. CRISPR/Cas9 KO of NDRG1 led to autophagy completion and reversal of the metixene apoptotic effect. Metixene is a promising therapeutic agent against metastatic brain cancer, with minimal reported side effects in humans, which merits consideration for clinical translation., Introduction Metastasis is a hallmark of cancer that remains a primary cause of cancer-related deaths (1). Brain metastases are the most common type of CNS malignancies. They often manifest with [...]

Purpose: Speakers with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) have an insidious onset of motor speech planning/programming difficulties. As the disease progresses, the apraxia of speech (AOS) becomes more severe and a co-occurring dysarthria often emerges. Here, longitudinal data from speakers with phonetic- and prosodic-predominant PPAOS are used to characterize the progression of their motor speech impairment, including the development of dysarthria and mutism. Method: Data are presented from 52 speakers who had PPAOS at enrollment (i.e., progressive AOS in the absence of aphasia, cognitive, or other neurologic symptoms). Twenty-one had predominantly phonetic features, whereas 31 had primarily prosodic features. All participants underwent a comprehensive motor speech evaluation at their enrollment visit and each annual return visit, with a median of three visits per participant. Results: Almost 25% of the speakers with PPAOS presented with dysarthria at their enrollment visit (median disease duration of 3.65 years), whereas more than 70% of them had developed dysarthria by their last visit (median disease duration of 6.85 years). Neither the likelihood to develop dysarthria nor the disease duration at which it was detected differed significantly between the phonetic and prosodic groups. However, muteness emerged sooner for speakers with phonetic-predominant PPAOS; the median disease duration at which they became mute was 1.5 years shorter than for their prosodic counterparts. Conclusions: Clinically, these results facilitate more accurate prognostication of motor speech symptoms in speakers with PPAOS, allowing for timely introduction of alternative means of communication. The results also support the differentiation between progressive AOS and dysarthria as distinct motor speech disorders that often co-occur in these individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) have apraxia of speech (AOS) in which disruptions in articulation or prosody predominate the speech pattern, referred to, respectively, as phonetic or prosodic subtypes. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria. Past research has demonstrated that simple temporal acoustic measures are sensitive to the presence of AOS. The aim of this study was to describe the change in temporal acoustic measures over time and assess if specific patterns of AOS or co-occurring aphasia or dysarthria impact the rate of change over time. Method: Durations for multiple productions of the words "cat," "catnip," "catapult," and "catastrophe," in an imitative speech task, were recorded for 73 patients, with two to six visits each. A linear mixed-effects model was used to assess the crosssectional differences and longitudinal influence of AOS subtype and presence of aphasia/dysarthria on speech rate. Pearson correlations were calculated between rate measures and performance on other clinical measures. Results: Cross-sectionally, patients with prosodic-predominant PPAOS produced words more slowly than those with phonetic-predominant PPAOS. Patients with either aphasia or dysarthria produced words more slowly than those without. Longitudinally, the speech rate of patients with phonetic-predominant PPAOS had a reduction of 0.5 syllables per second per year. Patients with prosodic-predominant AOS changed less quickly, as did those who developed aphasia. Dysarthria did not impact rate of change. There were strong associations between speech rate measures and other clinical indices of speech and language functioning. Conclusion: Simple temporal acoustic measures may reflect the subtype of AOS (phonetic or prosodic predominant), serve as an index of progression of AOS, and inform prognostication relative to the presenting combination of speech and language features.

Introduction: Transcribing disordered speech can be useful when diagnosing motor speech disorders such as primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS), who have sound additions, deletions, and substitutions, or distortions and/or slow, segmented speech. Since transcribing speech can be a laborious process and requires an experienced listener, using automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems for diagnosis and treatment monitoring is appealing. This study evaluated the efficacy of a readily available ASR system (wav2vec 2.0) in transcribing speech of PPAOS patients to determine if the word error rate (WER) output by the ASR can differentiate between healthy speech and PPAOS and/or among its subtypes, whether WER correlates with AOS severity, and how the ASR's errors compare to those noted in manual transcriptions. Method: Forty-five patients with PPAOS and 22 healthy controls were recorded repeating 13 words, 3 times each, which were transcribed manually and using wav2vec 2.0. The WER and phonetic and prosodic speech errors were compared between groups, and ASR results were compared against manual transcriptions. Results: Mean overall WER was 0.88 for patients and 0.33 for controls. WER significantly correlated with AOS severity and accurately distinguished between patients and controls but not between AOS subtypes. The phonetic and prosodic errors from the ASR transcriptions were also unable to distinguish between subtypes, whereas errors calculated from human transcriptions were. There was poor agreement in the number of phonetic and prosodic errors between the ASR and human transcriptions. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that ASR can be useful in differentiating healthy from disordered speech and evaluating PPAOS severity but does not distinguish PPAOS subtypes. ASR transcriptions showed weak agreement with human transcriptions; thus, ASR may be a useful tool for the transcription of speech in PPAOS, but the research questions posed must be carefully considered within the context of its limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aims of the study were to assess and compare grammatical deficits in written and spoken language production in subjects with agrammatic primary progressive aphasia (agPPA) and in subjects with agrammatism in the context of dominant apraxia of speech (DAOS) and to investigate neuroanatomical correlates. Method: Eight agPPA and 21 DAOS subjects performed the picture description task of the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) both in writing and orally. Responses were transcribed and coded for linguistic analysis. agPPA and DAOS were compared to 13 subjects with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) who did not have agrammatism. Spearman correlations were performed between the written and spoken variables. Patterns of atrophy in each group were compared, and relationships between the different linguistic measures and integrity of Broca's area were assessed. Results: agPPA and DAOS both showed lower mean length of utterance, fewer grammatical utterances, more nonutterances, more syntactic and semantic errors, and fewer complex utterances than PPAOS in writing and speech, as well as fewer correct verbs and nouns in speech. Only verb ratio and proportion of grammatical utterances correlated between modalities. agPPA and DAOS both showed greater involvement of Broca's area than PPAOS, and atrophy of Broca's area correlated with proportion of grammatical and ungrammatical utterances and semantic errors in writing and speech. Conclusions: agPPA and DAOS subjects showed similar patterns of agrammatism, although subjects performed differently when speaking versus writing. Integrity of Broca's area correlates with agrammatism.