Rééducation de la compréhension asyntaxique chez les personnes aphasiques post-accident vasculaire cérébral : une revue systématique de la littérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asyntactic comprehension corresponds to a disorder in the comprehension of sentences, which is one of the difficulties that can arise in a context of aphasia following a stroke. To date, rehabilitation of asyntactic comprehension is divided into three main groups of approaches, centered on the structure of the sentence, on the memory or on the verb and its thematic roles. The present study aims to assess the effectiveness of the existing treatments to rehabilitate asyntactic comprehension in post-stroke aphasic individuals, in terms of post-treatment improvements, generalization, long-term maintenance and transfer effects to daily life activities. A systematic review of the literature was carried out and twenty-four studies presenting seven different treatments, were selected, involving a total of 148 post-stroke aphasic patients. The methodological quality of each study has been analyzed following the Santiago-Delefosse grid or the MMAT grid. In general, the analysis of the measures of effectiveness (post-treatment improvement, generalization, maintenance, and transfer effects) showed that the treatments whose approach was centered on the structure of the sentence or on the working memory are those allowing to significantly improve syntactic comprehension for individuals with aphasia. The short-term memory approach did not show improvement in syntactic comprehension but remains little studied. And the approach based on the verb and its thematic roles is so far too understudied to draw a clear conclusion. The present study contributes to the advancement of knowledge on syntactic rehabilitation in the context of post-stroke aphasia leadind to various clinical implications for an informed choice. The few studies available on the subject as well as the few data collected constitute, among other things, a limit to this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".