Identification of aphasia post stroke: A review of screening assessment tools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Aphasia is one of the most common consequences of stroke. Early identification, diagnosis and treatment of language deficits are important steps in maximizing rehabilitation gains. A routine screening test is an invaluable tool in the identification and appropriate referral of patients with potential communication problems. The present study presents an evaluation of the measurement properties of screening tools for aphasia found within the stroke research literature. METHODS: Screening tools were identified following searches of the published research literature in stroke. Instruments were reviewed on the basis of reliability, validity, classification sensitivity and practical utility. RESULTS: Six aphasia screening tools were identified. For most tools, information pertaining to measurement properties and clinical utility was limited. CONCLUSIONS: The Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST) appears to be the most widely used and thoroughly evaluated tool found within the stroke research literature. Further evaluation of the measurement properties and clinical utility of screening tools is recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it