%0 Journal Article %A Shalom K. Henderson %A Katie A. Peterson %A Karalyn Patterson %A Matthew A. Lambon Ralph %A James B. Rowe %T Verbal fluency tests assess global cognitive status but have limited diagnostic differentiation: Evidence from a large-scale examination of six neurodegenerative diseases %D 2022 %R 10.1101/2022.08.16.22278837 %J medRxiv %P 2022.08.16.22278837 %X Objective Verbal fluency is clinically widely used but its utility in differentiating between neurodegenerative dementias and progressive aphasias, and from healthy controls, remains unclear. We assessed whether the total number of words produced, their psycholinguistic properties, and production order effects could differentiate between Alzheimer’s disease (AD), behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), non-fluent and semantic variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal syndrome (CBS), and healthy controls.Methods Category and letter fluency tasks were administered to 33 controls and 139 patients at their baseline clinical visit: 18 AD, 16 bvFTD, 26 nfvPPA, 26 svPPA, 36 PSP, and 17 CBS. We assessed group differences for total words, psycholinguistic word properties, and associations between production order and exemplar psycholinguistic properties. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves determined which measure could best discriminate patient groups and controls.Results Total word count distinguished controls from all patient groups, but neither this measure nor the word properties differentiated the patient groups. ROC curves revealed that, when comparing controls to patients, the strongest discriminators were total word count followed by word frequency. Word frequency was the strongest discriminator for svPPA versus other groups. Fluency word counts were associated with global severity as measured by Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R).Conclusions Verbal fluency is an efficient test for assessing global brain-cognitive health but has limited utility in differentiating between cognitively- and anatomically-disparate patient groups. This outcome is consistent with the fact that verbal fluency requires many different aspects of higher cognition and language.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work and the corresponding author (SKH) was supported and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, and Gates Cambridge Scholarship (Grant Number: OPP1144). This study was supported by the Cambridge Centre for Parkinson-Plus; the Medical Research Council (SUAG/051 G101400; MR/P01271X/1); the Wellcome Trust (103838); the NIHR Cambridge Clinical Research Facility and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014); and an intramural award (MC_UU_00005/18) to the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Patients were recruited from specialist memory and movement disorders clinics at Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust in observational studies (REC references 07/Q0102/3; 10/H0308/34; 12/EE/0475; 14/LO/2045; 16/LO/1735).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/08/17/2022.08.16.22278837.full.pdf