ArticleAphasiology2023
When words first fail: Predicting the emergence of primary progressive aphasia variants from unclassifiable anomic performance in early disease.
Article in Aphasiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Your Mileage May Vary: Individuals with Primary Progressive Aphasia Differ Widely in Their Utilization of Congruent Prosodic and Visual Information During Sentence Comprehension.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Normative Data for the Adult Turkish Population and Validation Study in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease of the TDQ-30 Tr, a Color Picture-naming Test for Adults and the Elderly.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Language assessment in primary progressive aphasia: Which components should be tested?PloS one · 2025Article
- Shave, shear, shred, or cut: PPA variant differentially impacts erroneous responses produced in a confrontation naming test of verbs.Aphasiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The majority of patients with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) can be distinguished into one of three variants: semantic, non-fluent/agrammatic, or logopenic. However, many do not meet criteria for any one variant. Aim: To identify aspects of cognitive-linguistic performance that yield an early unclassifiable PPA designation that predicted the later emergence of a given variant. Methods & Procedures: Of 256 individuals with PPA evaluated, 19 initially were unclassifiable and later met criteria for a variant. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to evaluate the binary ability of a given task to predict eventual classification as a given variant. Tasks with a high area under the curve were examined using regression analyses to determine their ability to predict variant. Outcomes & Results: High mean predictive value was observed for multiple naming assessments targeting nouns and verbs. The Boston Naming Test (BNT) was the only test that, in isolation, resulted in a significant model and high classification accuracy. Conclusions: Although naming impairment is common across PPA variants, very low initial BNT scores emerged as a uniquely accurate basis for predicting eventual semantic variant, and normal BNT scores predicted eventual nonfluent/agrammatic variant. High performance on picture-verb verification was useful in identifying future lvPPA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.