MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414613898 · doi:10.3390/bs15101339

Exploring Language Recovery Pattern in Persons with Aphasia Across Acute and Sub-Acute Stages

2025· article· en· W4414613898 on OpenAlexaff
Deepak Puttanna, Nova Maria Saji, Mohammed Alharbi, Akshaya Swamy, Darshan Hosaholalu Sarvajna

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsLet's Talk Science
FundersTaibah University
KeywordsAphasiaComprehensionQuality of life (healthcare)Language impairmentPsychological interventionCorrelationLanguage development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recovery from aphasia is a complex process involving restoring language ability to a level comparable to an individual's pre-aphasia state. This recovery extends beyond linguistic functions such as improved quality of life and functional communication. Understanding language recovery in PWAs is a key area in aphasia research. Thus, the current study aimed to understand the pattern of language recovery in the acute and sub-acute stages of persons with aphasia (PWAs). A total of 11 PWAs aged between 40 and 80 were recruited. The study was conducted in two phases. In the acute stage (within one week post-stroke), participants were assessed using the Western Aphasia Battery-Kannada (WAB-K). In the sub-acute stage (between seven and fifteen days post-stroke), a similar test battery was repeated. The findings of the study showed auditory verbal comprehension scores were pronounced in the acute and sub-acute stages of recovery. Further, language quotient (LQ) scores were higher in the sub-acute stage compared to the acute stage, though these differences failed to evince statistical differences. Correlation analysis revealed strong positive correlations between LQ and spontaneous speech, repetition, and naming, with moderate correlations for auditory verbal comprehension. The study's findings highlight the importance of targeted therapeutic interventions for PWAs, emphasizing an early focus on auditory verbal comprehension to enhance overall language recovery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 venueBehavioral SciencesSame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207