MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409518710 · doi:10.1684/pnv.2025.1218

Validation of the action naming test with videos (T-DAV) in individuals with post-stroke aphasia

2025· article· en· W4409518710 on OpenAlexaff
Manon Spigarelli, Sarah Hortala, Maximiliano A. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueGériatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie du Vieillissement · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphasiaStroke (engine)Action (physics)Test (biology)PsychologyCognitive psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNatural language processingComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Verb anomia is a key symptom in individuals with post-stroke aphasia, yet its assessment tools remain limited. The Action Naming Test With Videos (T-DAV) had not yet been validated for this population. This study aims to validate the T-DAV in individuals with post-stroke aphasia by exploring the effects of lexical frequency and phonemic cues on naming performance. Discriminant validity was examined by comparing the performance of 18 individuals with post-stroke aphasia with that of healthy participants. The effect of lexical frequency was also analyzed. The T-DAV accurately differentiated the performance of patients and healthy participants, showing good discriminant validity. A frequency effect was observed, and phonemic cues improved performance in individuals with post-stroke aphasia. The T-DAV addresses a need in the French-speaking assessment of verb anomia in post-stroke aphasia, thereby facilitating more targeted therapeutic interventions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGériatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie du VieillissementSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207