MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical and neuroimaging characteristics of patients with primary progressive aphasia

2015· article· en· W3028955064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shuai Liu, Zhihong Shi, Li Cai, Shuling Liu, Hao Lu, Tong Han, Ying Wang, Yuying Zhou, Shuo Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueChin J Neurol · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary progressive aphasiaMedicineTemporal lobeAtrophyAphasiaSemantic dementiaDementiaNeuroimagingFrontotemporal dementiaClinical Dementia RatingBoston Naming TestMagnetic resonance imagingPsychologyInternal medicineAudiologyPsychiatryRadiologyEpilepsyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To identify the clinical profile and the neuroimaging characteristics of patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Methods Of 32 patients diagnosed as PPA in the Memory Clinic of Tianjin Huanhu Hospital between April 2011 and October 2014, 16 patients with semantic dementia (SD), 15 patients with progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA), 1 patient with logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) were identified. Clinical data of the patients were collected. Cognitive function was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Clinical Dementia Rating and Boston naming test. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was conducted to evaluate the cortex atrophy and medial temporal lobe atrophy. The 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) and Pittsburg Compound B (PiB) PET cerebral imaging were performed in patients with atypical clinical and MRI demonstrations. Results The onset age was 40 to 69 (59.6±7.0) years, and 24 patients (75%) were younger than 65 years. The ratio of male to female was 17 to 15. Seven patients (22%) have positive family history. The average onset age of SD patients was younger than PNFA patients. The Boston naming test and verbal fluency test had a high sensitivity in PPA patients, and the scores of SD patients were lower than PNFA patients. Twenty three of the patients had memory loss. Patients with SD showed bitemporal lobe atrophy, left temporal lobe atrophy. PFNA patients mainly manifested as left frontotemporal, bilateral frontotemporal atrophy on MRI scan. Five patients (3 PNFA, 2 SD) with no obvious atrophy on head MRI had FDG-PET scan. Among the three PNFA patients, one showed hypometabolism on the left frontal, left thalamus, left anterior cingulate, and two showed hypometabolism on bilateral frontal, insula, thalamus, caudate nucleus, anterior cingulate, and left temporal lobe. Among the two SD patients, one showed left temporal, left caudate nucleus hypometabolism, and one showed bilateral temporal (left > right), left frontal, left insula, left occipital hypometabolism. One LPA patient showed right temporal, parietal lobe, insula, and left parietal lobe hypometabolism. LPA patients showed cortical amyloid deposition. Conclusions PPA patients have younger onset age. The majority of patients have memory loss. Brain atrophy and hypometabolism are mainly on the left frontotemporal lobe. LPA patients show deposition of amyloid protein. Key words: Primary progressive aphasia; Dementia; Clinical neuroimaging

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChin J NeurolSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207