MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220869350 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2022.2051080

Principles and philosophies for speech and language therapists working with people with primary progressive aphasia: an international expert consensus

2022· article· en· W4220869350 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Volkmer, Jade Cartwright, Leanne Ruggero, Ashleigh Beales, Jeanne Gallée, Stephanie M. Grasso, Maya L. Henry, Regina Jokel, Jacqueline Kindell, Rebecca Khayum, Margaret Pozzebon, Elizabeth Rochon, Cathleen Taylor‐Rubin, R. Townsend, Ffion Walker, Suzanne Beeke, Deborah Hersh

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkBaycrest HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersResearch Trainees Coordinating CentreNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPrimary progressive aphasiaFocus groupSpeech-Language PathologyThematic analysisPsychological interventionPsychologySet (abstract data type)ReflexivityAphasiaBest practiceMedical educationDementiaMedicineApplied psychologyQualitative researchNursingCognitive psychologyComputer sciencePhysical therapySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a language-led dementia associated with Alzheimer's pathology and fronto-temporal lobar degeneration. Multiple tailored speech and language interventions have been developed for people with PPA. Speech and language therapists/speech-language pathologists (SLT/Ps) report lacking confidence in identifying the most pertinent interventions options relevant to their clients living with PPA during their illness trajectory. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to establish a consensus amongst 15 clinical-academic SLT/Ps on best practice in selection and delivery of speech and language therapy interventions for people with PPA. An online nominal group technique (NGT) and consequent focus group session were held. NGT rankings were aggregated and focus groups video recorded, transcribed, and reflexive thematic analysis undertaken. RESULTS: The results of the NGT identified 17 items. Two main themes and seven further subthemes were identified in the focus groups. The main themes comprised (1) philosophy of person-centredness and (2) complexity. The seven subthemes were knowing people deeply, preventing disasters, practical issues, professional development, connectedness, barriers and limitations, and peer support and mentoring towards a shared understanding. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the philosophy of expert practice and outlines a set of best practice principles when working with people with PPA.Implications for rehabilitationPrimary progressive aphasia (PPA) describes a group of language led dementias which deteriorate inexorably over time.Providing speech and language therapy for people with PPA is complex and must be person centred and bespoke.This study describes the philosophy of expert practice and outlines a set of best practice principles for speech and language therapists/pathologists working with people with people with PPA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.217
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2170.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0120.019
Research integrity0.0120.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations67
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207