A longitudinal study of behavior in frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the construct validity of the Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI) and to describe the evolution of the behavioral abnormalities of the behavioral and aphasic presentations of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) by means of a 3-year longitudinal study. BACKGROUND: The FBI is a standardized behavioral questionnaire useful in the diagnosis and quantification of the personality and behavior disorder FTD. METHOD: Patients who had three consecutive yearly assessments with the FBI were selected, 12 with the behavioral variant of FTD (FTD-bv) and 14 with Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA). RESULTS: FBI scores rose as the disease progressed in both the FTD-bv and PPA groups over the 3 years of testing. Initial mean FBI scores of the FTD-bv group were above the cutoff for FTD as established for this diagnosis with previous standardization. By the third year, the mean FBI score of PPA patients was also above the established cutoff for FTD. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of the study demonstrates that the FBI is sensitive to changes in behavior and personality in both variants of FTD. The FBI can be used to describe the evolution of symptoms and the course of the illness of Pick complex patients who present initially with FTD-bv or who present with PPA and subsequently develop the behavioral disorder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".