Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41258473›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Reconstructing impaired language using generative AI for people with aphasia.

Achini Adikari, Damminda Alahakoon, Nuwan Pallewela, John E Pierce, Nelson J Hernandez, Miranda L Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Achini AdikariCentre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. A.Adikari@latrobe.edu.au.
Damminda AlahakoonCentre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nuwan PallewelaCentre for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
John E PierceCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Nelson J HernandezCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Miranda L RoseCentre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council Grant APP2003210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), it may be possible to capitalise on AI's generative capabilities to assist people in compensating for their impaired language. Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a recent breakthrough, revealing the potential to generate fluent, contextually relevant, and coherent texts. The current study leverages this inherent capability of LLMs in text generation and completion to compensate for impaired language in adults with acquired communication disabilities. To date, research studies on LLM for aphasia (a language-based communication disability after brain injury) have focused on specific and well-defined tasks and contexts (e.g., story retelling), and therefore may be less accurate and reliable in real-life conversation scenarios. This research proposes a language-assistive solution embedded in dialogue systems for individuals with aphasia to detect and correct errors in their aphasic speech during natural conversations. We have customised using in-context few-shot prompting (no weight updates) LLM to correct neologisms, paraphasic errors, and word-finding gaps that occur in aphasic speech. This could assist in identifying such errors in conversation and suggest completions in fragmented sentences. We utilised the Langchain architecture to retain previous utterances in memory, enabling the preservation of context and maintaining a natural conversation flow. We utilised a dataset comprising ~ 1980 utterances from 180 participants from AphasiaBank, and the AI-reconstructed utterances achieved an accuracy of 80% using the GPT-4o model. We further investigated the impact of different speech errors on reconstruction accuracy to determine which errors affect the capability of LLMs to correct errors in impaired speech.

Indexed as

AphasiaArtificial IntelligenceLanguageAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAphasiaArtificial intelligenceAssistive communicationGPTLangchainLLMs for aphasia

Identifiers

PMID41258473
PMCPMC12630810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.