SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Smaller and Denser Speech Graphs in Nondemented Patients with Progressive Supranuclear Palsy.

Behav Neurol · 2023-09-25

DOI: 10.1155/2023/3771601PMID: 37790602

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

The well-established semantic fluency test measures the ability to produce a sequence of spoken words from a particular category within a limited period of time. Like patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) tend to produce fewer correct words than age-matched healthy adults. This study further examined the difference between patients with PSP and PD in their semantic fluency performance using a graph theory-based approach. Twenty-nine patients with PSP Richardson's syndrome (PSP-RS), thirty-eight patients with PD, and fifty-one healthy controls (HC) were recruited. All participants completed a standard semantic fluency test (animals). Their verbal responses were recorded, transcripted, and transformed into directed speech graphs. The speech graphs of the PSP-RS group showed higher density, shorter diameter, and shorter average shortest path than those of the PD and HC groups. It indicates that the PSP-RS group produced smaller and denser speech graphs than the PD and HC groups. In the PSP-RS group, moreover, the average shortest paths of the speech graphs correlated with the severity of motor symptoms. This study shows the potential of the graph theory-based approach in distinguishing the semantic fluency performance of nondemented patients with PSP-RS and PD.

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.