Communication recovery in the first three months following minor stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that people with minor stroke can experience multiple post-stroke impairments. This study explored the communication skills of people with minor stroke one week and three months post-stroke. METHOD: A longitudinal cohort mixed method design was used. Participants completed the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised, Boston Naming Test, La Trobe Communication Questionnaire-Self, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale, along with semi-structured interviews and conversation samples 1 week and 3 months post-stroke. RESULT: Fourteen participants were recruited. Five experienced aphasia according to Western Aphasia Battery-Revised scores at one week. Boston Naming Test scores improved significantly between one week and three months (p = .020). There were no significant changes in Western Aphasia Battery-Revised, La Trobe Communication Questionnaire-Self, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale scores between one week and three months (all p > .05). Word finding difficulties were noted in most participants' conversation samples, but rarely led to conversation breakdowns. Qualitative content analysis revealed eight categories, including communication changes and their impact, the impact of other post-stroke impairments, strategies used, and services received. CONCLUSION: This study provides further evidence that a subset of people with minor stroke experience post-stroke communication changes. Future research should explore the optimal speech-language pathology support for this potentially under-serviced patient cohort.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".