Cognitive Profile of the Logopenic Variant of Primary Progressive Aphasia Using the <b><i>Dépistage Cognitif de Québec</i></b>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) is characterized by impaired word-finding and sentence repetition with phonologic errors but spared motor speech and grammar and semantic knowledge. Although its language deficits have been well studied, the full spectrum of cognitive changes in the lvPPA remains to be defined. We aimed to explore the neurocognitive profile of the lvPPA using a newly developed cognitive screening tool for atypical dementias, the Dépistage Cognitif de Québec (DCQ). METHODS: We compared 29 patients with lvPPA to 72 amnestic variant Alzheimer disease (aAD) to 438 healthy control (HC) participants. Performance on the 5 indexes of the DCQ (Memory, Visuospatial, Executive, Language and Behavioral) was compared between the 3 groups. RESULTS: Results showed a significantly lower performance for lvPPA participants in all neurocognitive domains, when compared to HC. When compared to aAD, lvPPA participants had significantly lower scores for language, executive, and visuospatial abilities, but not for memory and behavior. CONCLUSION: Altogether, these findings better define the neurocognitive changes of lvPPA.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".