Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The term posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) was introduced in 1988 to describe five patients with fairly homogeneous, but otherwise unclassified, symptoms. These patients showed signs of a slowly progressive dementia bearing behavioral and physiologic similarities to Alzheimer's disease, but with notable distinctions. Specifically, PCA is characterized by an early onset of visual agnosia, followed by some or all components of Balint's syndrome, Gerstmann's syndrome, and transcortical sensory aphasia. REVIEW SUMMARY: In this review, the history, epidemiology, pathophysiology, neurobehavioral aspects, assessment (including neurologic and neuropsychologic), differential diagnosis, and treatment recommendations for this disorder are reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: As originally defined, PCA appears to be a clinically homogeneous syndrome. The cluster of symptoms that are common to virtually all examined cases evidences this. Although the behavioral and cognitive properties of the disorder are well established, many aspects of PCA remain unclear. Specifically, available research and understanding of PCA epidemiology and treatment are highly inadequate. In fact, the majority of such information regarding PCA is derived from studies of Alzheimer's disease. To a lesser extent, Pick's disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease research have also provided insight into the underpinnings of PCA. Until PCA is categorically defined as a variant or subgroup of these other neurodegenerative disorders, however, such derivations are merely speculations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".