Efficacy of Communication Bridge‐2 for primary progressive aphasia: A randomized controlled trial of communication intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a language-based neurodegenerative dementia, negatively impacts communication and quality of life. Previous non-pharmacologic interventions show promise but lack efficacy trials. Here, outcomes are provided from Communication Bridge-2 (CB2), a speech-language randomized controlled trial (RCT) for PPA. METHODS: CB2 is the first Phase 2, Stage II, parallel-group RCT delivered via video chat with global enrollment. Ninety-five dyads were randomized into one of two speech-language intervention arms. Primary outcomes included communication confidence and participation measures. Marginal linear models assessed efficacy across ≈12 months. RESULTS: Ninety-five dyads were randomized from four countries. Experimental arm superiority in communication-participation measurement of goal attainment was demonstrated (66.7% vs 49.1%, respectively, p = 0.006), and corroborated by post-study interviews. DISCUSSION: Outcomes demonstrate the feasibility and initial efficacy of a person-centered telemedicine intervention for maximizing communication participation for mild-to-moderate PPA, providing a pathway for developing and implementing clinically meaningful interventions for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. HIGHLIGHTS: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) negatively impacts communication participation. Communication Bridge-2 (CB2) is a telemedicine-delivered randomized controlled trial (RCT). Global recruitment of 95 PPA participant dyads into an RCT with low dropout. First international superiority trial for PPA using video chat shows efficacy. The study provides a model for rigorous non-pharmacologic trials for Alzheimer's disease/Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD).
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".