Abstract Chinese is one of the living languages with the highest homophone densities, making homophone processing a critical component of language comprehension and orthographic decoding, as well as an ideal model for examining its cognitive mechanisms. This study assessed mono- and bi-character homophone selection function in 129 Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking participants, including 66 cognitively healthy individuals, 17 with semantic variant (sv) primary progressive aphasia (PPA), 23 with the nonfluent/agrammatic variant (nfv) PPA, and 23 with the logopenic variant (lv) PPA. All PPA variants showed impairment in homophone selection, with most significant deficits in svPPA and lvPPA. ROC analyses demonstrated its strong diagnostic utility for distinguishing PPA from controls. Voxel-based morphometry revealed that homophone performance correlated with gray-matter volume in left anterior and inferior temporal regions, with variant-specific patterns observed. These findings described the potential role of homophone selection in diagnosing PPA syndrome in Chinese speakers, illuminate cross-linguistic influences on language impairment in PPA, and provide novel insights into the cognitive processing of homophones.
Abstract Syntax processing impairment is a defining feature of primary progressive aphasia (PPA), particularly in the nonfluent/agrammatic variant. However, current models are derived largely from Indo-European languages, and it remains unclear whether the cognitive and neuroanatomical mechanisms of syntax processing generalize to Chinese, an analytic, pro-drop language that encodes grammatical relationships primarily through word order and function words rather than inflectional morphology. Participants were recruited from the international Chinese Language Assessment in PPA cohort and included 64 individuals with PPA (19 logopenic, 15 nonfluent/agrammatic, 15 semantic, and 15 unclassifiable/mixed) and 60 cognitively healthy controls. Participants completed sentence comprehension and production tasks with systematically manipulated syntactic features. Item-level linguistic determinants were examined using ridge regression, diagnostic performance using receiver operating characteristic analyses, and neuroanatomical correlates using voxel-based morphometry of structural MRI. Performance on sentence comprehension and production was influenced by grammatical and lexical features. Subject-relative clauses, passive constructions, a higher proportion of function words, longer character length, and greater lexical content were associated with poorer performance among participants with PPA. Sentence comprehension was impaired in the logopenic, nonfluent/agrammatic, and semantic variants, even when isolated to the syntactic component of the sentence comprehension task. Similarly, sentence production was impaired across all PPA variants (all P < 0.01 versus controls). No significant differences were observed among PPA variants. Adjusted receiver operating characteristic analyses demonstrated high discrimination between each PPA variant and controls, with areas under the curve ranging from 0.87 to 0.97 for sentence comprehension-syntax and from 0.91 to 0.97 for sentence production. However, pairwise comparisons showed no significant differences in discriminative performance among PPA variants after correction for multiple comparisons. Both sentence comprehension-syntax and sentence production showed associations with semantic and repetition measures in addition to motor speech measures. Voxel-based morphometry showed that higher sentence comprehension-syntax scores were associated with greater grey matter volume in left frontotemporal and cingulate regions, whereas higher sentence production scores were additionally associated with greater gray matter volume in frontostriatal structures, including the caudate, putamen, and thalamus. Syntactic processing impairment in Chinese-speaking individuals with PPA extends beyond the nonfluent/agrammatic variant and is associated with distributed frontotemporal and frontostriatal regions, as well as lexical-semantic and auditory verbal short term memory mechanisms. These findings suggest that the cognitive and neural manifestations of syntactic impairment may be shaped by language-specific typological properties, underscoring the need for linguistically informed approaches to the assessment and interpretation of PPA.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated for clinical tasks, but safe use requires reliable uncertainty estimates as well as high accuracy. We tested eight general-purpose LLMs on 100 validated neurology board-style multiple-choice questions and compared three confidence signals: self-reported confidence, critique-implied confidence from an independent model instance, and consistency-based confidence from repeated sampling. Accuracy varied from 45% (Llama 3.1 8B) to 92% (Gemini 3 Flash/Pro), but confidence was generally overestimated, particularly in lower-accuracy models. Consistency-based confidence provided the best discrimination between correct and incorrect answers (pooled AUROC 0.74), outperforming self-report, although calibration differences between methods were not significant. Calibration should therefore be reported alongside accuracy when clinical LLMs are evaluated. ### Competing Interest Statement NG has received access to cloud compute resources from Microsoft AI for Good Lab. The authors declare no other interests relevant to the manuscript. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Data and analysis scripts for the manuscript are available via zenodo and github respectively. Confidence and calibration data: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20272032 and interactive python R notebook for analyses: https://github.com/Applied-Health-Intelligence-Lab/Neurology\_LLM\_Confidence_Calibration/tree/main .The eBrain question text, answer options, and answer key are not publicly available because the questions are restricted educational assessment materials and release would compromise assessment integrity; access is controlled by the eBrain platform. [https://github.com/Applied-Health-Intelligence-Lab/Neurology\_LLM\_Confidence_Calibration/tree/main][1] NIHR UK Dementia Research Institute, https://ror.org/02wedp412 NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, https://ror.org/01kmhx639 Medical Research Council, https://ror.org/03x94j517 MSA Trust UCL Centre for Equality Research in Brain Sciences [1]: https://github.com/Applied-Health-Intelligence-Lab/Neurology_LLM_Confidence_Calibration/tree/main
Objectives: Health professions students often receive limited training on how to adjust their communication for patients whose first language is not English (LX), despite the risks for diagnosis, treatment, and patient trust. Based on Communication Accommodation Theory, we developed a brief module to improve students' awareness and knowledge of strategic communication adjustments for LX patients. Methods: We tested feasibility in a single-group, pre-post pilot study guided by the Kirkpatrick framework with undergraduate (n=22) and graduate (n=41) speech-language pathology and psychology students in Massachusetts and North Carolina. The module included instructional content, video and audio examples, interactive activities, and a podcast. Learning was assessed with knowledge checks, and self-reported facilitative and resistant accommodation with the Communication Accommodation Behavior Scale (CABS). After training, students rated their confidence and likelihood of using accommodation strategies. Results: At both sites, facilitative accommodation increased and resistant accommodation decreased significantly, with a larger decrease at the undergraduate site. Knowledge-check accuracy was high at both time points, suggesting a ceiling effect. Students reported moderate- to-high confidence in adapting their speech and high likelihood of using a learned strategy in future clinical encounters. Conclusions: A brief module can be feasibly delivered across institutions and is associated with short-term improvements in self-reported communication accommodation. Practice implications: We recommend future work evaluate whether these changes translate into clinical behavior long-term and refine knowledge-check items to better capture learning gains. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The Institutional Review Board of East Carolina University determined that this study was exempt from further IRB review (UMCIRB 25-001427). All participating students provided written informed consent prior to participation. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes De-identified data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to applicable institutional and ethical requirements. U.S. National Science Foundation, https://ror.org/021nxhr62, 2141281
Objective: To determine how cohort versus nested case-control (NCC) design affects EHR-based prediction of a rare outcome. Materials and Methods: We compared two cohort and five NCC designs for predicting early-onset gastrointestinal cancer using L1-regularized logistic regression (LASSO), XGBoost, and multilayer perceptron (MLP). Models underwent nested five-fold cross-validation with model-specific hyperparameter tuning and temporal evaluation in a held-out prospective cohort representing intended deployment. Model discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Model calibration was assessed using Brier scores and calibration plots before and after recalibration with isotonic regression. Feature-ranking similarity was quantified using rank-biased overlap. Results: The cohort development datasets included 256,854-415,529 patients, with 2-yr cumulative incidence of 0.12%-0.17%, compared with approximately 9% in the 1:10 matched NCC datasets. NCC designs generally produced higher internal discrimination, but temporal performance varied by algorithm and index-date definition. Cohort designs achieved the highest temporal AUPRC for LASSO (0.068), whereas diagnosis-anchored NCC achieved the highest temporal AUPRC for XGBoost (0.086) and MLP (0.070). Temporal AUPRC generally decreased as the required lead time before diagnosis increased. Raw predicted probabilities substantially overestimated observed risks in the temporal cohort. Isotonic recalibration improved probability scaling while largely preserving discrimination, although residual miscalibration remained. Cohort-based feature rankings were more consistent across algorithms, whereas NCC-based rankings depended more strongly on algorithm and index-date anchoring. Conclusion: Study design should be selected and evaluated according to the intended clinical prediction task and deployment setting. ### Competing Interest Statement Y.C. reports consulting fees from Need, Geneoscopy, and Bayer for work performed outside the scope of this study within the past 5 years and reports no current consulting relationships. J.M.R. is employee and shareholder of Johnson & Johnson. G.H. receives contracts from Johnson & Johnson to Columbia University to support methods research not directly related to this study. The other authors declare no competing interests. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The EHR data used in this study contain protected health information and are not publicly available. Aggregated data to support the findings of this study can be made available upon a reasonable request from the corresponding author. This study was approved by the Washington University Institutional Review Board (#202510130) and granted a waiver of HIPAA Authorization for the use of Protected Health Information (PHI), hence participant consent was not required. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes The EHR data used in this study contain protected health information and are not publicly available. Aggregated data to support the findings of this study can be made available upon a reasonable request from the corresponding author. [https://github.com/causailab/study\_design\_comparison\_rare\_outcomes][1] Cancer Research UK, CGCATF-2023/100037 National Cancer Institute, OT2CA297576 [1]: https://github.com/causailab/study_design_comparison_rare_outcomes
