Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 5, 2026

Whole-brain Segmentation and Change-point Analysis of Anatomical Brain MRI—Application in Premanifest Huntington's Disease
Published on: June 9, 2018
Can MRI Visual Assessment Differentiate the Variants of Primary-Progressive Aphasia?
S A Sajjadi1, N Sheikh-Bahaei2,3, J Cross3
1From the Department of Neurology (S.A.S.), University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California ssajjadi@uci.edu.
Background And Purpose:
Primary-progressive aphasia is a clinically and pathologically heterogeneous condition. Nonfluent, semantic, and logopenic are the currently recognized clinical variants. The recommendations for the classification of primary-progressive aphasia have advocated variant-specific patterns of atrophy. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the proposed imaging criteria and to assess the intra- and interrater reporting agreements.
Materials And Methods:
The cohort comprised 51 patients with a root diagnosis of primary-progressive aphasia, 25 patients with typical Alzheimer disease, and 26 matched control participants. Group-level analysis (voxel-based morphometry) confirmed the proposed atrophy patterns for the 3 syndromes. The individual T1-weighted anatomic images were reported by 3 senior neuroradiologists.
Results:
We observed a dichotomized pattern of high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (93%) for the proposed atrophy pattern of semantic-variant primary-progressive aphasia and low sensitivity (21% for nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia and 43% for logopenic-variant primary-progressive aphasia) but high specificity (91% for nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia and 95% for logopenic-variant primary-progressive aphasia) in other primary-progressive aphasia variants and Alzheimer disease (sensitivity 43%, specificity 92%). MR imaging was least sensitive for the diagnosis of nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia. Intrarater agreement analysis showed mean κ values above the widely accepted threshold of 0.6 (mean, 0.63 ± 0.16). Pair-wise interobserver agreement outcomes, however, were well below this threshold in 5 of the 6 possible interrater contrasts (mean, 0.41 ± 0.09).
Conclusions:
While the group-level results were in precise agreement with the recommendations, semantic-variant primary-progressive aphasia was the only subtype for which the proposed recommendations were both sensitive and specific at an individual level.
More Related Videos
12:50Lesion Explorer: A Video-guided, Standardized Protocol for Accurate and Reliable MRI-derived Volumetrics in Alzheimer's Disease and Normal Elderly
Published on: April 14, 2014
10:15Utilizing Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Improve Language Function in Stroke Patients with Chronic Non-fluent Aphasia
Published on: July 2, 2013
Related Concept Videos
Prosopagnosia
Visual Agnosia