MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402355652 · doi:10.1044/2024_ajslp-23-00341

A Preliminary Examination of a Novel Telepractice Screening Protocol for Poststroke Aphasia

2024· article· en· W4402355652 on OpenAlexaff
Selina Teti, Laura L. Murray, J. B. Orange, Angela C. Roberts, Mawukoenya Theresa Sedzro

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphasiaChecklistPsychological interventionMedicineProtocol (science)Clinical psychologyPsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The delivery of telepractice interventions for people with poststroke aphasia has been found effective and feasible compared to traditional, in-person interventions; however, telepractice assessments, particularly screening protocols, which may foster convenient access to aphasia diagnostic services, have received limited examination within the aphasia literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine a novel telepractice screening protocol for people with poststroke aphasia that assesses both language and extralinguistic cognitive abilities via both performance-based and patient-reported measures. Method: Twenty-one participants with previously diagnosed poststroke aphasia completed the telepractice administration of the Frenchay Aphasia Screening Test (FAST), the Aphasia Impact Questionnaire-21 (AIQ-21), the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), and the Cognitive-Communication Checklist for Acquired Brain Injury (CCCABI). Care partners of the participants completed the Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI). After the telepractice session, each participant completed a feasibility questionnaire to rate their overall experience. Results: All participants screened as having aphasia. Pearson correlation analyses yielded a strong positive relationship between OCS and FAST scores ( r = .74), a strong relationship between OCS and CCCABI scores ( r = −.71), and a moderate relationship between FAST and AIQ-21 scores ( r = −.35). Moderate relationships were noted between the performance-based measures and the CETI ( r = .30). The overall feasibility of telepractice administration was rated positively by each participant. No significant relationships were found between the feasibility responses and participant characteristics. Conclusions: Overall, the telepractice screening protocol yielded an effective and feasible way to identify poststroke aphasia. Similar to in-person administration of screening measures, it was more difficult to identify milder levels of aphasia severity. Future research should examine whether this telescreening protocol can identify poststroke aphasia within the broader stroke population.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologySame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207