ArticlePloS one2025
Language assessment in primary progressive aphasia: Which components should be tested?
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Neuromodulation Techniques for Aphasia Rehabilitation: A Comprehensive Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- Performance of older adults on MTL- BR Battery: ARE There differences in healthy aging? A pilot study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrimary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a dementia syndrome whose onset and course manifests with language deficits. There is a lack of instruments for clinical assessment of language in dementia and further research in the area is needed. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to identify language tasks that can aid the process of clinically diagnosing PPA and to determine those tasks most impaired in this population.
methodA sample of 87 individuals comprising 2 groups was assessed: a PPA group (PPAG) of 29 PPA patients; and a control group (CG) of 58 healthy subjects matched for age and education. All participants underwent a brief cognitive battery followed by a comprehensive language assessment using the MTL-BR Battery.
resultsA statistically significant performance difference was found between the PPAG and CG on the following tasks: structured interview, oral comprehension of phrases, oral narrative discourse, written comprehension of phrases, written dictation, sentence repetition, semantic verbal fluency, oral naming of nouns and verbs, object manipulation, phonological verbal fluency, body part recognition and left-right orientation, written naming of nouns, oral text comprehension, number dictation, written narrative discourse, written text comprehension and numerical calculations (mental and written).
conclusionThe results revealed that performance of PPA patients was poorer compared to healthy subjects on various language tasks. The most useful subtests from the MTL-BR battery for aiding clinical diagnosis of PPA were identified, tasks which should be prioritized when assessing this patient group.
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.