MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391577580 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2024.2314326

The communication needs of people with primary progressive aphasia and their family: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4391577580 on OpenAlex
K E Davies, Tami Howe, Jeff Small, Ging‐Yuek Robin Hsiung, Elaina McCarron

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrimary progressive aphasiaAphasiaPsychologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language-led dementias, collectively called primary progressive aphasia (PPA), are caused by relatively focal damage to the language networks of the brain. The progressive language decline of PPA is associated with negative effects on quality of life; depression, hopelessness, and grief; and higher levels of economic burden for the individuals and their families. Although communication impairments are the primary symptoms at onset, people with PPA often receive minimal to no support for their communication needs. This scoping review aimed to explore what is currently known within the existing peer-reviewed research literature about the communication needs of people with PPA and their family members, from the perspectives of people with PPA, their family, and speech-language pathologists. A secondary aim was to identify the research approaches used in the included studies. Four databases were searched. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of the eligible studies revealed eight broad areas of communication need for people with PPA: Language; Social communication; Everyday communication; Conversation; Social connection; Communication with people other than the family member; Support and coping with communication difficulties; and Education and information. The latter five areas were also identified for family members: Conversation; Social connection; Communication with people other than the family member; Support and coping with the communication difficulties of the person with PPA; and Education and information. The findings provide an initial overview of communication needs for this population and point to key avenues for future research in this area.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.308 · 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