<i>Wh-</i>questions and passive sentences in non-fluent variant PPA and semantic variant PPA: Longitudinal findings of an anagram production task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an anagram task, we investigated longitudinal syntactic production by individuals with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA) and non-fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA), compared to controls. The accuracy of the production of active and passive, and reversible and non-reversible sentences, as well as of wh- questions was compared across the three groups. Results showed a different pattern of syntactic impairment across the two patient groups. The nfvPPA group showed difficulty with wh- questions at Time 1 and impairment with the passive structure approximately one year later, at Time 2. Surprisingly, the svPPA group also showed difficulty with wh- questions from Time 1, but still no difficulty on passive sentences, two years later, at Time 3. Neither group had difficulty with reversibility. The results of the nfvPPA patients were as expected, and the results of the svPPA patients suggest that this group may exhibit a greater syntactic impairment than is typically recognized.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".