La variante logopénique de l’aphasie primaire progressive : état des connaissances et controverses cliniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The newly identified logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) is far from being unanimously accepted among the clinical and scientific community. The objective of the present literature review is to provide an update on the characteristics allowing the differential diagnosis of lvPPA, as well as to raise the issues concerning consensual and controversial elements related to the specificity of its clinical features. Nineteen articles have been retrieved through a systematic search in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Current Contents. The aims pursued in these articles, as well as their research angles, are highly varied. Some relate to diagnostic criteria while others are rather intended to differentiate the clinical characteristics of lvPPA from those of the two other variants of PPA or of Alzheimer’s disease. Generally, results from a number of studies suggest that lvPPA is a distinct entity from the two other PPA variants, but its diagnostic criteria lack specificity or sensibility. A few other studies specifically addressed the differentiation between lvPPA and Alzheimer’s disease or challenged its very existence. This literature review does not allow for a clear and definitive conclusion with regard to the characterization of lvPPA but provides an accurate portrait of challenges related to this new clinical entity. It strongly suggests that future studies should be conducted in order to clarify and improve the distinctive characteristics of PPA variants.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".