Consensual recommendations for the description of three variants of primary progressive aphasia: limits and controversies regarding language impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consensual recommendations for the diagnostic criteria of three variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) were published in 2011. Since their publication, these recommendations were the object of criticism, which has recently led to the proposition of their revision. This article gives a description of the criteria that preceded the consensual criteria currently in use, and presents the different limits and controversies regarding the description of each PPA variant's language profile. These controversies will be examined in terms of the description of each variant's central manifestations, their differential diagnosis, the links between each clinical entity and its underlying pathology, and the evolution of the language profile. Lastly, this article offers perspectives regarding language evaluation in PPA that have several implications for clinical practice and research.
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 | 0.027 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".