MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282551361 · doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06162-7

Communication Bridge™-2 (CB2): an NIH Stage 2 randomized control trial of a speech-language intervention for communication impairments in individuals with mild to moderate primary progressive aphasia

2022· article· en· W4282551361 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Roberts, Alfred Rademaker, Elizabeth Salley, Aimee Mooney, Darby Morhardt, Melanie Fried‐Oken, Sandra Weıntraub, Marsel Mesulam, Emily Rogalskı

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institute on AgingNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesFeinberg School of MedicineNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokePortland State UniversityNorthwestern University
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineIntervention (counseling)TelehealthPrimary progressive aphasiaQuality of life (healthcare)Psychological interventionPhysical therapyAphasiaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTelemedicineDementiaDiseasePsychiatryFrontotemporal dementiaNursingHealth carePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a clinical dementia syndrome. Impairments in language (speaking, reading, writing, and understanding) are the primary and persistent symptoms. These impairments progress insidiously and devastate communication confidence, participation, and quality of life for persons living with PPA. Currently, there are no effective disease modifying treatments for PPA. Speech-language interventions hold promise for mitigating communication challenges and language symptoms. However, evidence regarding their efficacy in PPA is of low quality and there are currently no rigorous randomized trials. METHOD: Communication Bridge™-2 (CB2) is a Stage 2, superiority, single-blind, randomized, parallel group, active-control, behavioral clinical trial delivered virtually within a telehealth service delivery model to individuals with PPA. Ninety carefully characterized participants with clinically confirmed PPA will be randomized to one of two speech-language intervention arms: (1) Communication Bridge™ a dyadic intervention based in communication participation therapy models that incorporates salient training stimuli or (2) the control intervention a non-dyadic intervention based in impairment therapy models addressing word retrieval and language production that incorporates fixed stimuli. The superiority of Communication Bridge™ over the Control arm will be evaluated using primary outcomes of communication confidence and participation. Other outcomes include accuracy for trained words and scripts. Participants complete two therapy blocks over a 12-month period. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, at each therapy block, and at 12 months post enrollment. DISCUSSION: The CB2 trial will supply Level 2 evidence regarding the efficacy of the Communication Bridge™ intervention delivered in a telehealth service delivery model for individuals with mild to moderate PPA. An important by-product of the CB2 trial is that these data can be used to evaluate the efficacy of speech-language interventions delivered in both trial arms for persons with PPA. The impact of these data should not be overlooked as they will yield important insights examining why interventions work and for whom, which will advance effectiveness trials for speech-language interventions in PPA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03371706 . Registered prospectively on December 13, 2017.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207