Communication Bridge 2: Primary and secondary outcomes from a global telehealth randomized controlled trial for persons with primary progressive aphasia and their communication partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a currently incurable and relatively rare language‐based neurodegenerative dementia syndrome, which negatively impacts communication and quality of life. Non‐pharmacologic interventions show promise but have lacked randomized controlled trials (RCT). Here we report outcomes for Communication Bridge‐2 (CB2), the first global telemedicine speech‐language (RCT) for PPA. Method CB2 is an international, single enrollment site, Phase 2, Stage 2, parallel‐group, active control, behavioral RCT delivered via video‐chat to individuals with PPA and their communication partners. CB2 is supported by a custom web application. Participants were randomized 3:2 into one of two arms: Communication Bridge™ a dyadic intervention based on communication participation models, or, the Control intervention, a non‐dyadic intervention based on impairment models. Participants completed two intervention blocks over ∼12 months. Primary outcomes included communication confidence and participation measures assessed at baseline, each intervention block, and ∼12 months post‐enrollment. Other outcomes included word and script performance. Post‐study interviews captured participant experiences and informed feasibility. Result Ninety‐five PPA participant dyads (mean enrollment age of PPA participants: 67.1 years, 49% female) were randomized (n = 4 countries). Dropout was <10%. Procedural and documentation fidelity were high (>90%, for both). Theoretical fidelity showed strong within‐arm alignment. Experimental arm superiority was demonstrated at Block 1 for the Goal Attainment Scale, measurement, a primary participation outcome evaluated by a blinded clinician. The Communicative Participation Item Bank showed positive within‐group responsiveness at Block 1 exclusively for the experimental arm. Communication confidence measurement was less responsive. Other outcomes including word and script training, showed significant gains at Block 1 for both groups. Post‐study interviews suggested high feasibility. Conclusion Results suggest feasibility and initial efficacy for a global telemedicine intervention, providing an exciting path for implementation and dissemination of clinically meaningful interventions for Alzheimer’s and related dementias using telehealth models that can improve care access.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".