Language Disorders in Huntington Disease: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review examining the presence and nature of language disorders associated with Huntington disease (HD). BACKGROUND: HD is characterized by gradual motor dysfunction, psychiatric problems, and cognitive decline. Communication abilities in HD may be affected not only by dysarthria but also by language impairment. However, the nature and type of this impairment is not well defined. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and PsycINFO databases and selected studies on the basis of the original language of the article, peer-review status, and specificity of the results regarding language and communication disorders. RESULTS: Thirty-one articles meeting the selection criteria were selected for this review. According to most of the studies, individuals with HD present with primary deficits of language. However, a few authors suggested that language deficits in HD result from nonlinguistic impairments, or that language abilities are largely preserved. More specifically, studies showed that HD is associated with difficulties in producing and understanding sentences and discourse, processing semantic representations of object and action concepts, retrieving lexical forms of nouns, and applying morphological and syntactic rules. There is some disagreement regarding whether HD affects reading abilities, sentence production, semantic processing, and application of morphological rules in verb conjugation. CONCLUSIONS: Although people with HD present with language impairment, further studies are needed to identify their functional origin. Clinical studies are also needed to determine the impact of such impairments on an individual's functional communication in daily living and to chart the progression of the impairments over the course of the disease.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".