ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2024
Language abnormalities in Alzheimer's disease indicate reduced informativeness.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-Time Smartphone Monitoring Assessments as a Cognitive Biomarker of Alzheimer Disease: Protocol for a Development Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Assessment of Language Impairments Towards Identifying Markers for Early Diagnosis of Pathological Cognitive Decline.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The MINT Sprint 2.0: a Picture Naming Test for Detection of Naming Impairments in ΜCI Due or Not to AD, Greek Version.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2026Article
- Predicting amyloid status in Primary Progressive Aphasia using explainable artificial intelligence.NPJ dementia · 2026Article
- Voiceprints of cognitive impairment: analyzing digital voice for early detection of Alzheimer's and related dementias.NPJ dementia · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to elucidate the cognitive underpinnings of language abnormalities in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) using a computational cross-linguistic approach and ultimately enhance the understanding and diagnostic accuracy of the disease.
methodsComputational analyses were conducted on language samples of 156 English and 50 Persian speakers, comprising both AD patients and healthy controls, to extract language indicators of AD. Furthermore, we introduced a machine learning-based metric, Language Informativeness Index (LII), to quantify empty speech.
resultsDespite considerable disparities in surface structures between the two languages, we observed consistency across language indicators of AD in both English and Persian. Notably, indicators of AD in English resulted in a classification accuracy of 90% in classifying AD in Persian. The substantial degree of transferability suggests that the language abnormalities of AD do not tightly link to the surface structures specific to English. Subsequently, we posited that these abnormalities stem from impairments in a more universal aspect of language production: the ability to generate informative messages independent of the language spoken. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found significant correlations between language indicators of AD and empty speech in both English and Persian.
interpretationThe findings of this study suggest that language impairments in AD arise from a deficit in a universal aspect of message formation rather than from the breakdown of language-specific morphosyntactic structures. Beyond enhancing our understanding of the psycholinguistic deficits of AD, our approach fosters the development of diagnostic tools across various languages, enhancing health equity and biocultural diversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.