ArticleBrain sciences2025
The Heterogeneity of Reading and Spelling Deficits in Posterior Cortical Atrophy.
Article in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPosterior Cortical Atrophy (PCA) is a clinical syndrome marked by progressive visuospatial impairment, usually due to underlying Alzheimer's disease. While reading and spelling deficits are recognized clinical features of this syndrome, the contributions of visuoperceptual versus linguistic deficits to these impairments are still unclear.
methodsTo that end, we examined reading and spelling performance in 23 individuals from the Massachusetts General Hospital PCA cohort. Participants completed tests of reading from the Western Aphasia Battery and spelling to dictation from the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination. A mixed-methods analysis included quantitative scoring and qualitative observations of visual behaviors, error patterns, and compensatory strategies.
resultsParticipants commonly demonstrated visual scanning errors, difficulty following multi-line text, and spelling errors reflecting both visual-perceptual and orthographic-linguistic breakdowns.
conclusionsBecause reading and spelling in PCA are variably impaired cognitive skills driven by visual deficits and lexical vulnerability, assessments and interventions must account for deficits in both cognitive processes. Our findings highlight the vulnerability of reading and spelling in PCA and underscore the need for multimodal assessment strategies that account for the interplay of visual, phonological, and lexical processes. These insights can inform diagnosis and guide the development of accessible interventions tailored to optimize compensatory strategies to support functional language abilities.
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.