MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406024170 · doi:10.1002/alz.090930

Language impairment associated with prognosis in progressive supranuclear palsy

2024· article· en· W4406024170 on OpenAlexaff
Indira García‐Cordero, Mohsen Hadian, Ece Bayram, Federico Rodríguez‐Porcel, Christopher D. Stephen, Alexander Pantelyat, Jay M. Iyer, Tao Xie, Adam L. Boxer, Douglas Gunzler, Marian L. Dale, Nikolaus R. McFarland, Kyurim Kang, Matthew Swan, Anne‐Marie Wills, Anthony E. Lang, Maria Carmela Tartaglia

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalParkinson's Clinic of Eastern Toronto & Movement Disorders CentreOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological StatusProgressive supranuclear palsyAudiologyPsychologyRating scaleNeuropsychologyMedicineDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPsychiatryAtrophyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Language impairment is common in progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and is often overlooked due to the severity of the motor symptoms. We investigated whether language can be used to predict PSP prognosis. METHODS: One hundred-forty-six patients with a diagnosis of possible or probable PSP from the Tilavonemab (ABBV-8E12) clinical trial were evaluated at baseline and week 32 using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the PSP rating scale (PSPRS) and the Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale (SEADL). Percentage of change was calculated for each measure. Using correlations, we evaluated relationships between all RBANS-subscores (language, attention, memory and visuoconstructional), the PSPRS and SEADL scores at baseline; p-values were FDR corrected. Linear regression analyses were performed between the RBANS-language, RBANS-delayed-memory and RBANS-executive at baseline and the percentage of change over time. Grey matter volumes were extracted from three regions of interest based on language (bilateral temporal poles and inferior frontal gyri), executive (bilateral dorsolateral and superior frontal gyri and frontal pole) and memory (bilateral hippocampus, inferior, middle and superior temporal gyri) areas. RESULTS: Mean age of PSP patients: 68.8 years (49-86 years), 57 (39%) females. The RBANS language, executive and delayed memory scores at baseline were positively correlated with each other and with visuoconstructional and immediate memory score (all p<0.05). Only the RBANS-language score at baseline predicted percentage of change in PSPRS (B = -0.63, p = 0.003). The percentage of change in the RBANS-language score was predicted by the RBANS-language at baseline (B = -0.59, p<0.001). Lower age at baseline was associated with a worsening in language score over time (B = 0.51, p = 0.009). Language grey matter volume was associated with the change in RBANS-language score (B = 0.01, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: language impairment at baseline, in contrast to memory and executive functions, was predictive of functional decline as measured by PSPRS. Atrophy in language areas at baseline predicted language decline. Language impairment may be an independent prognostic factor in PSP. *Based on research using data from AbbVie that has been made available through Vivli, Inc. Vivli has not contributed to or approved, and is not in any way responsible for, the contents of this publication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→