Effect of word retrieval therapy on a patient with expressive aphasia: a case report
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT To verify the effect of word retrieval therapy on a patient with expressive aphasia. A forty-seven year-old, male, with 8 years of schooling, with complaints about not saying words after two ischemic stroke on the left hemisphere, participated in this study. The Montreal-Toulouse-Language Assessment Battery (MTL-BR), Brief Neuropsychological Assessment Instrument (NEUPSILIN-Af), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Functional Assessment Communication Skills scale (ASHA-FACS) were used pre- and post-therapy. A baseline test with 50 words, 25 nouns and 25 verbs was applied to obtain data regarding naming ability. The sessions occurred twice a week, for 50 minutes. The intervention was based on a set of 25 images of nouns and verbs, in oral and written modalities during six sessions, for each category. On the three final sessions, 10 figures of nouns and 10 figures of verbs were added in sentences. In the post-therapy, the final baseline showed an increase in vocabulary of nouns and verbs. In the pos-intervention evaluation, the patient had an improvement in some tasks of MTL-BR battery, NEUPSILIN-Af tasks. Improvement in the social communication and daily planning aspects were reported in the ASHA-FACS. In conclusion, the word retrieval therapy was effective in this case, because there was an increase of the vocabulary and improvement in several linguistic, communicative and cognitive aspects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it