SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Impairment of intermediate somatosensory function in corticobasal syndrome.

Sci Rep · 2020-07-07

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-67991-7PMID: 32636419

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Corticobasal syndrome (CBS) is characterized by unilateral atrophy of the brain. New diagnostic criteria for CBS include intermediate somatosensory dysfunction. Here, we aimed to carefully examine intermediate somatosensory function to identify tests which can assess impairment in CBS patients. Using voxel-based morphometry (VBM), we also aimed to show the anatomical bases of these impairments. Subjects included 14 patients diagnosed with CBS and 14 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Patients were evaluated using intermediate somatosensory tests and neuropsychological assessments. VBM was used to analyze differences in gray matter volumes between CBS and PD patients. In the PD group, no tests showed a significant difference between the dominant-side onset and the non-dominant-side onset. In the CBS group, all tests showed worse scores on the affected side. For detecting intermediate somatosensory dysfunction in CBS, two tests are recommended: tactile object naming and 2-point discrimination. VBM analysis showed that the volume of the left post- and pre-central gyrus, and both sides of the supplementary motor area were significantly decreased in the CBS group compared to the PD group. Although CBS remains untreatable, early and correct diagnosis is possible by performing close examination of intermediate somatosensory function.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.