MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Primary progressive aphasia: ReADing the clinical GRANularity

2022· article· en· W4282972151 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anthipa Chokesuwattanaskul, Charles R. Marshall, Natasja van Harskamp, Henry Houlden, Jonathan D. Rohrer, Chris JD Hardy, Jason D. Warren

Bibliographic record

VenuePractical Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlzheimer’s Research UKWolfson FoundationMedical Research Council CanadaBrain Research UKAlzheimer's SocietyNational Brain AppealMedical Research CouncilBarts Charity
KeywordsPrimary progressive aphasiaAphasiaAgrammatismMedicineAphasiologyPsychologyReading (process)NeuroscienceFrontotemporal dementiaAudiologyDementiaPathologyDiseaseLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary progressive aphasia remains a diagnostic challenge despite (or even because of) the increasing availability of ancillary tests and biomarkers. We present a 67-year-old man with apparently sporadic logopenic aphasia and positive Alzheimer biomarkers who was subsequently found also to have a pathogenic mutation in the progranulin gene. This was signalled by early atypical features (mild expressive agrammatism and behavioural change, rapid clinical deterioration) around the core logopenic aphasia syndrome. Each of the canonical progressive aphasia syndromes has a 'halo' of less typical variants that may herald alternative or additional pathologies. The accurate diagnosis of primary progressive aphasia depends on careful clinical analysis to direct investigations appropriately.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractical NeurologySame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207