MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110034133 · doi:10.1080/13554794.2014.917683

Improving verb anomia in the semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia: the effectiveness of a semantic-phonological cueing treatment

2014· article· en· W2110034133 on OpenAlexaff
Joël Macoir, Marie Leroy, Sonia Routhier, Noémie Auclair‐Ouellet, Michèle Houde, Robert Laforce

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocase · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité LavalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary progressive aphasiaAphasiaVerbPsychologyComprehensionCognitive psychologyAudiologyLinguisticsComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceDiseaseFrontotemporal dementiaDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The semantic variant of primary progressive aphasia (svPPA) is known to affect the comprehension and production of all content words, including verbs. However, studies of the treatment of anomia in this disorder focused on relearning object names only. This study reports treatment of verb anomia in an individual with svPPA. The semantic-phonological cueing therapy resulted in significant improvement in naming abilities, for treated verbs only. This case study demonstrates that improvement in verb-naming abilities may be possible in svPPA. The almost complete maintenance of the treatment's effects in the patient 4 weeks after the end of the therapy also suggests improvements may be durable, at least in the short term, for some individuals with svPPA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurocaseSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207