MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aphasia and herpes virus encephalitis: a case study

2012· article· en· W2118426645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Cristina Siqueira Soares-Ishigaki, Maysa Luchesi, Alexandre Pieri, Karin Zazo Ortiz

Bibliographic record

VenueSao Paulo Medical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphasiaPsychologyCognitionNeuropsychologyDementiaNeuropsychological assessmentPsychiatryAudiologyMedicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Meningoencephalitis early in life, of any etiology, is a risk factor for development of subsequent sequelae, which may be of physical, psychiatric, behavioral or cognitive origin. Anomia is a language abnormality frequently found in such cases, and other language deficits are rarely described. The aim of this study was to describe the cognitive and linguistic manifestations following a case of herpetic meningoencephalitis in a 13-year-old patient with eight years of schooling. CASE REPORT: The patient underwent a speech-language audiology assessment nine months after the neurological diagnosis. The battery of tests included the Montreal-Toulouse Language Assessment test protocol (MT Beta-86, modified), the description from the Cookie Theft task of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE), an informal assessment of the patient's logical and mathematical reasoning, and the neuropsychological subtests from the WAIS-III scale, which assess working memory. The patient presented mixed aphasia, impairment of short-term memory and working memory, and dyscalculia. This case also presented severe cognitive and linguistic deficits. Prompt diagnosis is crucial, in order to enable timely treatment and rehabilitation of this neurological infection and minimize the cognitive deficits caused by the disease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSao Paulo Medical JournalSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207