The efficacy of treatments for sentence production deficits in aphasia: a systematic review
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
Background: Many individuals with aphasia (IWA) experience sentence production deficits (SPD), which can affect their daily interactions. Even if distinct treatments have been developed to improve these deficits, their efficacy is not always thoroughly measured, which makes it difficult to determine the optimal treatment for a given IWA. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to analyse the efficacy of the treatments that have been proposed for SPD in terms of gains on trained items, generalization to untreated items, maintenance of the acquired gains, and transfer to other contexts. Methods: A systematic review was conducted across the following databases: PubMed, CINHAL, and LLBA. Results: Twenty-five studies met criteria for this review, regrouping 11 different SPD treatments and 84 IWA. Different types of treatment were found. They mainly target verbs, sentence structures, or morphology. Concerning efficacy, gains on trained items and generalization to untreated items were demonstrated for almost every treatment, whereas the other efficacy measures were not always reported or improved. IWA characteristics and intensity treatment variables were also analysed for each treatment. Conclusions: No matter whether they focus on verbs, sentence structures, or morphology, most of the analysed treatments seem to be effective for improving SPD in IWA. Through various treatments, efficacy seems to be dependent on IWA’s characteristics such as time post-stroke and aphasia severity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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