Cited by 41Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismVoice and Speech Disorders

Part of speech production in patients with primary progressive aphasia: An analysis based on natural language processing

Open access
Themistocleous, Charalambos, Webster, Kimberly, Afthinos, Alexandros, Tsapkini, Kyrana·2021·American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

Abstract

Background: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by a progressive decline of language functions. Its symptoms are grouped into three PPA variants: nonfluent PPA, logopenic PPA, and semantic PPA. Grammatical deficiencies differ depending on the PPA variant. Aims: This study aims to determine the differences between PPA variants with respect to part of speech (POS) production and to identify morphological markers that classify PPA variants using machine learning. By fulfilling these aims, the overarching goal is to provide objective measures that can facilitate clinical diagnosis, evaluation, and prognosis. Method and Procedure: Connected speech productions from PPA patients produced in a picture description task were transcribed, and the POS class of each word was estimated using natural language processing, namely, POS tagging. We then implemented a twofold analysis: (a) linear regression to determine how patients with nonfluent PPA, semantic PPA, and logopenic PPA variants differ in their POS productions and (b) a supervised classification analysis based on POS using machine learning models (i.e., random forests, decision trees, and support vector machines) to subtype PPA variants and generate feature importance (FI). Outcome and Results: Using an automated analysis of a short picture description task, this study showed that content versus function words can distinguish patients with nonfluent PPA, semantic PPA, and logopenic PPA variants. Verbs were less important as distinguishing features of patients with different PPA variants than earlier thought. Finally, the study showed that among the most important distinguishing features of PPA variants were elaborative speech elements, such as adjectives and adverbs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2020_ajslp-19-00114

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Across primary progressive aphasia variants, ASLA markers capture syndrome-specific patterns that predict underlying neuropathology years before death and correlate with variant-specific atrophy, even longitudinally.

    “Across primary progressive aphasia variants, ASLA markers capture syndromespecific patterns 49-53 that predict underlying neuropathology years before death 7 and correlate with variant-specific atrophy, 53-56 even longitudinally. 57”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bird, S. , Klein, E. , & Loper, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python: Analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. O'Reilly Media. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fraser, K. C. , Lundholm Fors, K. , Eckerström, M. , Themistocleous, C. , & Kokkinakis, D. (2018). Improving the sensitivity and specificity of MCI screening with linguistic information. In Proceedings of the LREC 2018 Workshop “Resources and processing of linguistic, para-linguistic and extra-linguistic data from people with various forms of cognitive/psychiatric impairments (RaPID-2)” (2015) (pp. 19–26). http://lrec-conf.org/workshops/lrec2018/W31/pdf/3_W31.pdf
  3. Goodglass, H. , Kaplan, E. , & Barresi, B. (2001). BDAE-3: Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination–Third Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. [Google Scholar]
  4. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Thompson, C. K. (2012). Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS). Northwestern University. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Thompson, C. K. , & Bastiaanse, R. (2012). Introduction to agrammatism. In Perspectives on agrammatism. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203120378 [Google Scholar] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Themistocleous, C., Webster, K., Afthinos, A., & Tsapkini, K.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Published
2021-02-11
Volume
30
Issue
1S
Pages
466-480
ISSN
  • 1058-0360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9110
OpenAlex
W3044885756
Cited by
41
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5
FWCI
3.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG068881)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC014475)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
primary progressive aphasia, morphological markers, picture description task, automated language assessment, feature importance, verb, adjectives and adverbs
MeSH terms
Humans, Language, Natural Language Processing, Semantics, Speech, Aphasia, Primary Progressive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review