Developmental language disorder: Early predictors, age for the diagnosis, and diagnostic tools. A scoping review

Background. Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is frequent in childhood and may have long-term sequelae. By employing an evidence-based approach, this scoping review aims at identifying (a) early predictors of DLD; (b) the optimal age range for the use of screening and diagnostic tools; (c) effective diagnostic tools in preschool children. Methods. We considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and primary observational studies with control groups on predictive, sensitivity and specificity values of screening and diagnostic tools and psycholinguistic measures for the assessment of DLD in preschool children. We identified 37 studies, consisting of 10 systematic reviews and 27 primary studies. Results. Delay in gesture production, receptive and/or expressive vocabulary, syntactic comprehension, or word combination up to 30 months emerged as early predictors of DLD, a family history of DLD appeared to be a major risk factor, and low socioeconomic status and environmental input were reported as risk factors with lower predictive power. Optimal time for screening is suggested between age 2 and 3, for diagnosis around age 4. Because of the high variability of sensitivity and specificity values, joint use of standardized and psycholinguistic measures is suggested to increase diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions. Monitoring risk situations and employing caregivers\u2019 reports, clinical assessment and multiple linguistic measures are fundamental for an early identification of DLD and timely interventions

Physiological and genetic response of olive leaves to water stress and recovery: implications of mesophyll conductance and genetic expression of aquaporins and carbonic anhydrase

28th Int Horticultural Congress on Science and Horticulture for People (IHC) / Int Symposium on Climwater - Horticultural Use of Water in a Changing Climate Aug 22-27, 2010 Lisbon, PORTUGAL Int Soc Hort Sci (ISHS)International audienceDrought is considered to be the main environmental factor limiting photosynthesis (A(N)) and, consequently, plant growth and yield worldwide. During photosynthesis, the pathway of CO2 from the atmosphere to the site of carboxylation in the chloroplast stroma has two main components: stomatal (g(s)) and mesophyll (g(m)) conductances. Both are finite and dynamic, responding to many abiotic factors, therefore reducing CO2 concentration. However, little is known about g(m) regulation in the short term, where a possible role of aquaporins (AQP) and carbonic anhydrase (CA) has been proposed. Five-year-old olive trees growing in 50 L pots were used to evaluate the acclimation and recovery of A(N) to drought and subsequent re-watering. Control trees were well-irrigated, while in stressed trees irrigation was withheld for 13 days and then resumed. We made a simultaneous analysis of the genetic expression of two AQP, OePIP1.1 and OePIP2.1, and of CA, on the one hand, and leaf water status, leaf gas exchange and shoot hydraulic conductivity on the other. This is the first time that genetic expression in olive is related to main physiological variables. Two days after withholding irrigation (a.w.i.), the g(s) and g(m) values in Stress tress were lower than in Control trees. This limited photosynthesis. Leaf water status decreased from day 4 a.w.i. Midday leaf water potential dropped from -1.2 on the day before withholding irrigation to -6.0 MPa on day 9 a.w.i. CA expression decreased during drought and there was a peak on OePIP1.1 expression on day 4 a.w.i. Leaf water status recovered in ca. 36 h after resuming irrigation. Both g(m) and A(N) did not fully recover until 46 days after rewatering. Stomatal conductance, however, did not recover in that period, probably because of an irreversible loss of shoot hydraulic conductivity. Both OePIP1.1 and OePIP2.1 peaked 36 h after rewatering. We found significant correlations between g(m) and both OePIP2.1 and CA expression