Assessment of Individuals with Primary Progressive Aphasia.
Maya L Henry, Stephanie M Grasso
PMID 29933490WHAT IT FOUND
For SLPs, PPA assessment should target the specific variant, not just use stroke aphasia batteries or language-based cognitive screens.
Detailed case history and PPA-specific tasks can help identify semantic, nonfluent/agrammatic, or logopenic profiles.
Key findings
01PPA diagnosis is two-tiered: first confirm communication difficulty is the prominent early problem, then identify semantic, nonfluent/agrammatic, or logopenic variant.
02In the reviewed studies, the Sydney Language Battery distinguished PPA variants with 80% accuracy, the Repeat and Point Test distinguished semantic from nonfluent cases with 100% accuracy, and a four-feature algorithm was 96% correct at subtyping relative to expert clinical diagnosis.
03Standard stroke aphasia batteries may miss early subtle PPA deficits, and language-based cognitive screens can overestimate cognitive impairment.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The article is a review, not a new study with participants, so it does not test the recommended assessments in a single patient group. The supplied text reports accuracy figures but does not include the underlying study details, tables, or figures needed to judge them. Not all individuals with PPA can be classified into the established variants. Rate and nature of progression vary from patient to patient. Some tools were developed for stroke aphasia or general dementia and may not be optimal for early PPA. Language-based cognitive screens can overestimate cognitive impairment in PPA.
Declared interests
The supplied text does not include a conflicts-of-interest declaration. Publication types list research support from NIH extramural and non-U.S. government sources.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the 80%, 100%, and 96% figures as proof that these tests will always give the right PPA subtype in your clinic. They come from reviewed studies, and the paper itself is an assessment review, not a new diagnostic validation study.