1naresh
Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) ) 1nareshArray ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) )Table 5:Predictive value of the aphasia improvement score
Degree of Language Improvement Aphasia Improvement Scorea No. of Patients Probability of Improvementb No. of Patients with This Score Showing Improvement Excellent 1 or 2 13 65%–99% (1 FP) 12 (93%) Fair 3 or 4 20 18%–96% (2 FP, 2 FN) 9 (45%) Poor 5 or 6 12 3%–32% (1 FN) 1 (12%) Dismal 7 or 8 13 1%–6% 0 (0%)
a The aphasia improvement score is calculated as described in Table 4.
b The probability of improvement is estimated on the basis of the logistic regression equation of Table 3; FP and FN cases are defined on the basis of the results of a multivariate model.