MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2779864656 · doi:10.1017/s0714980817000502

L’apport critique de l’évaluation de la communication dans le diagnostic précoce de l’apraxie primaire progressive de la parole

2017· article· en· W2779864656 on OpenAlexaff
Liziane Bouvier, Laura Monetta, Robert Laforce, Louis Verret, Vincent Martel‐Sauvageau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApraxiaPsychologyAudiologyDifferential diagnosisIntelligibility (philosophy)SpasticityMedicineAphasiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyPathologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAoS) is a neurodegenerative syndrome characterized by speech apraxia at its onset; as it progresses, it often evolves into total mutism. Even though this syndrome is increasingly recognized, its early differential diagnostic is still complex. The objective of this study was to illustrate why a fine evaluation of speech and language is essential for the differential diagnosis of PPAoS. This longitudinal case study presents the progression of a PPAoS patient over a period of 5 years. Periodic neurological and speech-language assessments were carried out to follow the progression of neurological, memory, language and speech symptoms. The different diagnostic labels established over time were also reported. The evolution of the patient's communication profile was characterized by a preservation of language components and episodic memory, in parallel with a progressive deterioration of speech which gradually reduced intelligibility, and was associated with signs of spasticity, resulting in a complete anarthria. This case study sheds light upon the evolution of a patient with PPAoS. A better understanding of the clinical profile and progression of PPAoS is necessary in order to improve early diagnosis and adequate care for these patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism→French-language works237,207→