Proverb Comprehension in Primary Progressive Aphasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Proverb comprehension was tested in 22 patients with primary progressive aphasia utilizing idiom explanation task. The aim of this study was to determine proverb comprehension in PPA patients using the Proverb Scale. Material and Methods: To assess the participants, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale, the Pyramid and Palm Trees test and the Proverb Scale were used. Results: As a result of statistical analysis, there was a significantly difference between svPPA and lvPPA regarding idiom comprehension scores, the Pyramid and Palm Trees Test Scores and MoCA scores. Conclusion: It is an important study to understand how the abstraction in PPA works regarding the language. In PPA subtypes, semantic memory, proverb and MoCA scores were significantly different between logopenic and semantic variants. Although MoCA and proverb comprehension were correlated in svPPA, no correlation was found in lvPPA. With similar studies in the field, it would be possible to better explain the effects of PPA, a disorder characterized by language disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".