Well, let me take the case of language deficits in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. There’s a growing purpose of evidence that indicates that, yes, some linguistic domains are typically spared or relatively spared across different cohorts with bvFTD. Yet, some other domains are systematically affected, I would say. Take, for instance, the case of picture naming deficits, which is, picture naming, a typical, let’s say, form of linguistic assessment...
Well, let me take the case of language deficits in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. There’s a growing purpose of evidence that indicates that, yes, some linguistic domains are typically spared or relatively spared across different cohorts with bvFTD. Yet, some other domains are systematically affected, I would say. Take, for instance, the case of picture naming deficits, which is, picture naming, a typical, let’s say, form of linguistic assessment. And, if you take a look at the current criteria for the diagnosis of bvFTD, you will see, for example, that one of the core diagnostic symptoms that are listed there is hyperorality. If you take a look at the sample that informs those current diagnostic criteria, you will see the hyperorality is actually found in something like 55%, 56% of patients in that sample. And yet it constitutes a core diagnostic deficit.
Now, a study that was published shortly after those current diagnostic criteria saw the light, looking at the sample that’s slightly larger even, in its size, conducted a systematic assessment with different linguistic domains. And it just so happens that picture naming deficits, which is a canonical linguistic measure, those deficits can be found in also as many as 55% of patients. So this shows that overlooking linguistic deficits in the assessment of the bvFTD patients may actually be leading to missing out on valuable opportunities for disease characterization and phenotyping and purposes, I would say.