The Course of Primary Progressive Aphasia Diagnosis : A Cross-Sectional Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundThe Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) diagnosis trajectory is debated, as several changes in diagnosis occur during PPA course, due to phenotype evolution from isolated language alterations to global cognitive impairment.The goal of the present study, based on a French cohort was to describe the demographics and the evolution of subjects with (PPA) in comparison with Alzheimer Disease (AD) on a period of seven years. MethodsWe conducted a repeated cross-sectional study. The study population comprised individuals with PPA and AD diagnosis (N=167191) from 2010 to 2016 in the French National data Bank (BNA). Demographic variables, MMSE scores, diagnosis status at each visit and prescribed treatments were considered.ResultsFrom 2010 to 2016, 5186 patients were initially diagnosed with PPA, 162005 with AD. Compared to AD subjects, significant differences were found concerning: age (younger at first diagnosis for PPA), gender (more balanced in PPA), education level (higher in PPA) and MMSE score (higher in PPA). Percentage of pending diagnosis, delay between first consultation and first diagnosis and the number of different diagnoses before the diagnosis of interest were significantly higher in PPA group compared to AD group. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments were significatively more recommended following PPA than AD diagnosis.ConclusionThis study improves the knowledge of PPA epidemiology and has the potential to help adopting appropriate public health service policies. It supports the hypothesis that PPA is diagnosed later than AD. The PPA diagnosis increases the prescription of non-pharmacological treatments, especially speech and language therapy (SLT) that is the main treatment available and most effective when at the initial stage.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03687112
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 | 0.024 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".