Abstract
The three variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) differ in clinical presentation, underlying brain pathology, and clinical course, which stresses the need for early differentiation. However, brief cognitive tests that validly distinguish between all PPA variants are lacking. The Sydney Language Battery (SYDBAT) is a promising screening instrument that can be used as a first step in a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment to distinguish PPA subtypes, but evidence on its validity and reliability is to date limited. In the current study, the validation and diagnostic value of the SYDBAT are described for discriminating PPA subtypes as well as distinguishing PPA from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's dementia (AD). Forty-five patients with PPA (13 with semantic PPA, 20 with logopenic PPA, and 12 with nonfluent/agrammatic PPA), 25 MCI patients, 13 AD patients, and 50 cognitively unimpaired controls were included in this study. Both patients and controls completed the SYDBAT-NL (Dutch version). Performance on and predictive ability of the four subtests (i.e., Naming, Word Comprehension, Repetition, and Semantic Association) were assessed. In addition, construct validity and internal consistency were examined. Different SYDBAT performance patterns were found across PPA and non-PPA patient groups. While a discriminant function analysis based on SYDBAT subtest scores could predict PPA subtype with 78% accuracy, it was more difficult to disentangle PPA from non-PPA patients based on SYDBAT scores alone. For assisting in clinical interpretation, simple rules were set up and translated into a diagnostic decision tree for subtyping PPA, which was capable of diagnosing a large proportion of the cases. Satisfying validity and reliability measures were found. The SYDBAT is an easy-to-use and promising screen for assessing single-word language processes, which may contribute to the differential diagnostic process of PPA and the assessment of language impairment in MCI and AD. It can be easily implemented for initial screening of patients in a memory clinic.
Highlights
The three variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) differ in clinical presentation, underlying brain pathology, and clinical course, which stresses the need for early differentiation
Forty-five patients diagnosed with PPA (13 sv-PPA, 20 lv-PPA, and 12 nfv-PPA), 35 non-PPA patients diagnosed with either Alzheimer’s dementia (AD) (n = 13) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 25), and 50 cognitively unimpaired controls were included in this study
The diagnostic value of the Sydney Language Battery (SYDBAT)-NL was assessed in samples of patients with PPA or non-PPA cognitive decline (AD and MCI patients) and cognitively unimpaired controls
Summary
The three variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) differ in clinical presentation, underlying brain pathology, and clinical course, which stresses the need for early differentiation. Conclusions: The SYDBAT is an easy-to-use and promising screen for assessing single-word language processes, which may contribute to the differential diagnostic process of PPA and the assessment of language impairment in MCI and AD It can be implemented for initial screening of patients in a memory clinic. The Boston Naming Test (Kaplan et al, 1983) is often used—in many cases even in its abbreviated 15-item Consortium To Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease version (Mack et al, 1992) This test, only examines the presence of anomia (word-retrieval deficits) and is insufficient to differentiate between all PPA subtypes since this difficulty is common to all three variants of PPA (Gorno-Tempini et al, 2011). The often-used standard aphasia batteries developed for use with stroke-induced aphasia may lack sensitivity to detect the subtle deficits that are present in early stages of PPA and may result in inappropriate nomenclature (such as Broca’s or Wernicke’s) based on the stroke-induced aphasia classification (Henry & Grasso, 2018). Clark et al (2020) examined the utility of a standard stroke aphasia battery, the Western Aphasia Battery–Revised (WAB-R), for classifying variants of PPA, and they concluded that “WAB-R classification did not distinguish among PPA classification determined by consensus” (p. 498)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
