Peter J. Nestor

Bio: Peter J. Nestor is an academic researcher from University of Queensland. The author has contributed to research in topics: Dementia & Frontotemporal dementia. The author has an hindex of 58, co-authored 158 publications receiving 14268 citations. Previous affiliations of Peter J. Nestor include University of Oxford & Mater Health Services.

Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain.

Abstract: Mr M, a patient with semantic dementia - a neurodegenerative disease that is characterized by the gradual deterioration of semantic memory - was being driven through the countryside to visit a friend and was able to remind his wife where to turn along the not-recently-travelled route. Then, pointing at the sheep in the field, he asked her "What are those things?" Prior to the onset of symptoms in his late 40s, this man had normal semantic memory. What has gone wrong in his brain to produce this dramatic and selective erosion of conceptual knowledge?

Clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy: The movement disorder society criteria

Abstract: Background: PSP is a neuropathologically defined disease entity. Clinical diagnostic criteria, published in 1996 by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke/Society for PSP, have excellent specificity, but their sensitivity is limited for variant PSP syndromes with presentations other than Richardson's syndrome. Objective: We aimed to provide an evidence- and consensus-based revision of the clinical diagnostic criteria for PSP. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, and PSYCInfo databases for articles published in English since 1996, using postmortem diagnosis or highly specific clinical criteria as the diagnostic standard. Second, we generated retrospective standardized clinical data from patients with autopsy-confirmed PSP and control diseases. On this basis, diagnostic criteria were drafted, optimized in two modified Delphi evaluations, submitted to structured discussions with consensus procedures during a 2-day meeting, and refined in three further Delphi rounds. Results: Defined clinical, imaging, laboratory, and genetic findings serve as mandatory basic features, mandatory exclusion criteria, or context-dependent exclusion criteria. We identified four functional domains (ocular motor dysfunction, postural instability, akinesia, and cognitive dysfunction) as clinical predictors of PSP. Within each of these domains, we propose three clinical features that contribute different levels of diagnostic certainty. Specific combinations of these features define the diagnostic criteria, stratified by three degrees of diagnostic certainty (probable PSP, possible PSP, and suggestive of PSP). Clinical clues and imaging findings represent supportive features. Conclusions: Here, we present new criteria aimed to optimize early, sensitive, and specific clinical diagnosis of PSP on the basis of currently available evidence.

A brief cognitive test battery to differentiate Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia

Abstract: Objectives: To validate a simple bedside test battery designed to detect mild dementia and differentiate AD from frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Methods: Addenbrooke9s Cognitive Examination (ACE) is a 100-point test battery that assesses six cognitive domains. Of 210 new patients attending a memory clinic, 139 fulfilled inclusion criteria and comprised dementia (n = 115) and nondementia (n = 24) groups. The composite and the component scores on the ACE for the two groups were compared with those of 127 age- and education-matched controls. Norms and the probability of diagnosing dementia at different prevalence rates were calculated. To evaluate the ACE9s ability to differentiate early AD from FTD, scores of the cases diagnosed with dementia with a Clinical Dementia Rating Results: Two cut-off values for the ACE composite score (88 and 83) were of optimal utility depending on the target population. The ACE had high reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity (93%, using 88 as cut-off). Using the lower cut-off of 83, the ACE had a higher sensitivity (82%) and predictive value than the Mini-Mental State Examination for a wide range of dementia prevalence. The ACE differentiated AD from FTD, and the VLOM ratio (derived using component scores: [verbal fluency + language]/[orientation + memory]) of 3.2 for AD was highly discriminating. Conclusion: The ACE is a brief and reliable bedside instrument for early detection of dementia, and offers a simple objective index to differentiate AD and FTD in mildly demented patients.

Focal cortical presentations of Alzheimer's disease.

Abstract: To determine the frequency of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in patients presenting with progressive focal cortical syndromes, notably posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), corticobasal syndrome (CBS), behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA) (or a mixed aphasia) and semantic dementia (SD); and to compare the age of onset, evolution and prognosis in patients with focal cortical presentations of AD versus more typical AD and those with non AD pathology. From a total of 200 patients with comprehensive prospective clinical and pathological data we selected 120 : 100 consecutive cases with focal cortical syndromes and 20 with clinically typical AD. Clinical files were reviewed blind to pathological diagnosis. Of the 100 patients with focal syndromes, 34 had AD as the primary pathological diagnosis with the following distribution across clinical subtypes: all 7 of the PCA (100%); 6 of 12 with CBS (50%); 2 of 28 with bvFTD (7.1%); 12 of 26 with PNFA (44.1%); 5 of 7 with mixed aphasia (71.4%) and 2 of 20 with SD (10%). Of 20 with clinically typical AD, 19 had pathological AD. Age at both onset and death was greater in the atypical AD cases than those with non-AD pathology, although survival was equivalent. AD is a much commoner cause of focal cortical syndromes than previously recognised, particularly in PCA, PNFA and CBS, but rarely causes SD or bvFTD. The focal syndrome may remain pure for many years. Patients with atypical AD tend to be older than those with non-AD pathology.

The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

Abstract: The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.

Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia.

Abstract: Based on the recent literature and collective experience, an international consortium developed revised guidelines for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. The validation process retrospectively reviewed clinical records and compared the sensitivity of proposed and earlier criteria in a multi-site sample of patients with pathologically verified frontotemporal lobar degeneration. According to the revised criteria, 'possible' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia requires three of six clinically discriminating features (disinhibition, apathy/inertia, loss of sympathy/empathy, perseverative/compulsive behaviours, hyperorality and dysexecutive neuropsychological profile). 'Probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia adds functional disability and characteristic neuroimaging, while behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia 'with definite frontotemporal lobar degeneration' requires histopathological confirmation or a pathogenic mutation. Sixteen brain banks contributed cases meeting histopathological criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and a clinical diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies or vascular dementia at presentation. Cases with predominant primary progressive aphasia or extra-pyramidal syndromes were excluded. In these autopsy-confirmed cases, an experienced neurologist or psychiatrist ascertained clinical features necessary for making a diagnosis according to previous and proposed criteria at presentation. Of 137 cases where features were available for both proposed and previously established criteria, 118 (86%) met 'possible' criteria, and 104 (76%) met criteria for 'probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. In contrast, 72 cases (53%) met previously established criteria for the syndrome (P < 0.001 for comparison with 'possible' and 'probable' criteria). Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. In conclusion, the revised criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia improve diagnostic accuracy compared with previously established criteria in a sample with known frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Greater sensitivity of the proposed criteria may reflect the optimized diagnostic features, less restrictive exclusion features and a flexible structure that accommodates different initial clinical presentations. Future studies will be needed to establish the reliability and specificity of these revised diagnostic guidelines.

Updating and Validating the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Score for Risk Adjustment in Hospital Discharge Abstracts Using Data From 6 Countries

Abstract: With advances in the effectiveness of treatment and disease management, the contribution of chronic comorbid diseases (comorbidities) found within the Charlson comorbidity index to mortality is likely to have changed since development of the index in 1984. The authors reevaluated the Charlson index and reassigned weights to each condition by identifying and following patients to observe mortality within 1 year after hospital discharge. They applied the updated index and weights to hospital discharge data from 6 countries and tested for their ability to predict in-hospital mortality. Compared with the original Charlson weights, weights generated from the Calgary, Alberta, Canada, data (2004) were 0 for 5 comorbidities, decreased for 3 comorbidities, increased for 4 comorbidities, and did not change for 5 comorbidities. The C statistics for discriminating in-hospital mortality between the new score generated from the 12 comorbidities and the Charlson score were 0.825 (new) and 0.808 (old), respectively, in Australian data (2008), 0.828 and 0.825 in Canadian data (2008), 0.878 and 0.882 in French data (2004), 0.727 and 0.723 in Japanese data (2008), 0.831 and 0.836 in New Zealand data (2008), and 0.869 and 0.876 in Swiss data (2008). The updated index of 12 comorbidities showed good-to-excellent discrimination in predicting in-hospital mortality in data from 6 countries and may be more appropriate for use with more recent administrative data.