Bilingualism in Primary Progressive Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by progressive deterioration of language. Being rare, reports of PPA in multilingual individuals are scarce, despite more than half of the world population being multilingual. METHODS: We describe clinical characteristics of 33 bilingual patients with PPA, including symptom presentation and language deficits pattern in their first (L1) and second language (L2), through a systematic literature review and new cases retrospectively identified in 5 countries. RESULTS: In total, 14 patients presented with nonfluent/agrammatic variant, 6 with semantic variant, and 13 with logopenic variant, with a median symptom onset of 2 years. Word-finding difficulties was the first symptom in 65% of all cases, initially noticed in L2, and not always the dominant language. Our group had 22 different languages as L1, and 9 as L2. At the whole-group level there was a tendency for parallel impairment in both languages, in line with the shared bilingual neural substrate hypothesis, but each PPA variant showed some heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: Each PPA variant showed heterogeneity, showing the need for comprehensive language and cognitive assessment across languages, as well as further clarification on the role of language mediators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".