Financial and legal decision-making capacity in the aphasic population – a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Capacity is assumed to be present unless proven otherwise. Assessments of specific decision-making capacity for financial and legal decisions, although challenging in the general population, becomes almost impossible for individuals with language disorders (i.e. aphasia) in the absence of appropriate communication aids. Several capacity aids exist for the general population; however, it is unclear whether any communication aids exist specifically for the aphasic population to assist assessment of financial and legal decision-making capacity. METHOD: A literature review was conducted of six databases with the assistance of a research librarian. From 171 articles screened, 12 were included in the final review. RESULTS: The literature focus was on medical decision-making capacity, and in particular, patient consent. Few articles addressed legal or financial decision-making capacity. Several articles identified the presence of general and specific capacity aids for the general population; however, there was a clear absence of similar communication aids available for the aphasic population with only one communication aid identified to assist with decision-making capacity assessment for healthcare and accommodation decisions only. CONCLUSION: Whilst a significant amount of research has been done on decision-making capacity, it is mostly focused on healthcare; in particular, on patient consent for treatment for the non-aphasic population. Although a communication aid exists to aid assessment of decision-making capacity for healthcare for aphasic individuals, no similar tools exist to aid financial and legal decision-making capacity assessments. This paper highlights an important problem encountered during clinical practice which requires further 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".