12/25/2023 0 Comments Chronological age testVariations in the rate of BA have been shown to be a reliable predictor of mortality, performing significantly better than CA. Hence, individuals of identical chronological age (CA), defined as years lived since birth, can have significant variations in their biological age (BA), the age indicative of the body’s rate of cellular decline or physiological breakdown. Members of the same species also vary in the rate of aging, which correlates with their susceptibility to disease, impairment, and death. The rate of aging varies among species as evidenced by variation up to 100-fold in lifespan among mammals. In conclusion, BA is increased in people with diabetes, irrespective of pathophysiology, and to a lesser extent in prediabetes. Mortality data using the ACCORD trial was used to validate our results and showed a significant correlation between higher BA and decreased survival. BMI had a positive correlation to BA in non-diabetes subjects but disappeared in those with diabetes. The biomarkers with the strongest correlation to increased BA in T2D using KDM were A1c ( R 2 = 0.23, p < 0.0001) and systolic blood pressure ( R 2 = 0.21, p < 0.0001). ![]() Results were corroborated using MLR and PhAge. BA of people with T2D was, on average, 12.02 years higher than people without diabetes ( p < 0.0001), while BA in T1D was 16.32 years higher ( p < 0.0001). ![]() The phenotypic age (PhAge) formula was used with its predetermined biomarkers. Eight clinical biomarkers that correlated with CA in people without diabetes were used to calculate BA using the Klemera and Doubal method 1 (KDM1) and multiple linear regression (MLR). Deidentified data was obtained from three cohorts of patients (20–80 years old)-T2D, type 1 diabetes (T1D), and prediabetes-and compared to gender- and age-matched non-diabetics. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) associates with increased morbidity and mortality thus, we hypothesized that BA would be increased and calculated it from biomarkers collected at routine clinical visits. These results showed co-morbidity between SLI and poor oral motor skills, suggesting that SLI is not just a language disorder, but a group of co-morbid conditions that include oral motor and verbal praxis difficulties.Chronological age (CA) is determined by time of birth, whereas biological age (BA) is based on changes on a cellular level and strongly correlates with morbidity, mortality, and longevity. Spearman’s correlations revealed a strong correlation between core language scores and sequential movements in the younger children with SLI and in TD children. We used the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test to compare the two groups with respect to oral and verbal praxis measures and we found a significant difference between isolated and sequential movements in the oral praxis section in two age subgroups of these groups (p ≤. To investigate oral and verbal praxis behaviors, we administered the Assessment Protocol for Oral Motor, Oral Praxis and Verbal Praxis Skills to the two groups. ![]() We assessed participants in both groups for their language abilities with age-appropriate standardized language tests. Fifteen children with SLI formed a clinical group and 15 children with typical development who were matched to the clinical group for chronological age, gender, and socio-economic status formed the TD group. In the present study, we investigated oral and verbal praxis behaviors in children with SLI. Yet, there have been limited attempts to assess the link between non-linguistic and linguistic development. A growing body of research has highlighted the links between oral motor kinematics and language production skills in both typically developing (TD) children and children with developmental language disorders, including Specific Language Impairment (SLI). These movements involve programming articulators and rapid sequences of muscle firings that are required for speech sound productions. In the context of language descriptions, the terms oral and verbal praxis refer to volitional movements for performing oral gestures and movements for speech. Narayanan, Swapna Vijayan, Kavya Vastare Guruprasad, Mekhala Prabhu P, Prashanth Barman, Animesh Oral and Verbal Praxis in Impaired Language Learners Oral and Verbal Praxis in Impaired Language Learners
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |