MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886871786 · doi:10.3233/jad-170881

Connected Speech Features from Picture Description in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2886871786 on OpenAlexafffund
Antoine Slegers, Renée-Pier Filiou, Maxime Montembeault, Simona M. Brambati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Alzheimer s Disease · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDiseasePsychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceMedicinePathologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The language changes that occur over the course of Alzheimer's disease (AD) can impact communication abilities and have profound functional consequences. Picture description tasks can be used to approximate everyday communication abilities of AD patients. As various methods and variables have been studied over the years, current knowledge about the most affected features of AD discourse in the context of picture descriptions is difficult to summarize. This systematic review aims to provide researchers with an overview of the most common areas of impairment in AD discourse as they appear in picture description tasks. Based on the 44 articles fulfilling inclusion criteria, our findings reflect a multidimensional pattern of changes in the production (speech rate), syntactic (length of utterance), lexical (word-frequency and use of pronouns), fluency (repetitions and word-finding difficulties), semantic (information units), and discourse (efficiency) domains. We discuss our findings in the light of current research and point to potential scientific and clinical uses of picture description tasks in the context of AD.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations121
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Alzheimer s DiseaseSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207