MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413378255 · doi:10.1101/2025.08.08.25333331

Elaboration and validation of R-LAST (Right Language Screening Test), a rapid and reliable screening tool to detect cognitive communication disorders in acute right hemisphere stroke

2025· preprint· en· W4413378255 on OpenAlexaff
Constance Flamand‐Roze, Ryad Zerarka, Heather L. Flowers, Laura Monetta, Edwige Lescieux, Cosmin Alecu, Didier Smadja, Fernando Pico, Bruno Falissard, Nicolas Chausson

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsCentre for Research on Brain Language and MusicUniversité LavalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRight hemisphereElaborationCognitionStroke (engine)Test (biology)PsychologyAcute strokeCognitive psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineNeurosciencePsychiatryHumanitiesEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The role of the right hemisphere in language use and interpretive abilities has become clearer through studies describing sequelae in patients with right hemisphere stroke (RHS). Between 50% and 78% of stroke survivors with RHS experience communication disorders, a condition recently termed “apragmatism” by a group of experts. Apragmatism can negatively impact individuals’ personal lives and overall quality of life. Objective To develop and validate a bedside cognitive and communication screening tool for features of apragmatism in prospective patients with right stroke, called the Right Language Screening Test (R-LAST), which is simple, rapid, and suitable for emergency settings. Patients and methods R-LAST consists of seven subtests and twelve items. We report its internal and external validity and inter-rater reliability. We validated the scale by prospectively administering it to 300 patients admitted to two stroke units with confirmed right stroke, as well as to 94 stabilized patients with and without cognitive-communication disorders, using the MEC B as a reference. Results Internal validity demonstrated no redundancy with a Pearson coefficient less than 0.8. The internal consistency of the 12 items was questionable, indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.62. External validation against MEC B revealed a sensitivity of 0.84 and a specificity of 0.82. Inter-rater agreement was nearly perfect (ICC 0.993). The average time needed to complete R-LAST was 3 minutes and 52 seconds. Conclusion R-LAST could enable rapid and reliable detection of apragmatism in the acute phase of stroke, which could lead to timely referrals to speech-language therapists and ensure timely rehabilitation. This comprehensively validated cognitive-communication disorders rating scale is simple and rapid, making it a useful tool for bedside evaluation of acute stroke patients in routine clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration Unique Identifier: NCT03622606 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03622606?term=R-LAST&rank=1

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venuemedRxiv→Same topicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism→French-language works237,207→