Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating evidence suggest that frontotemporal dementia is best viewed as a clinical syndrome even though there are distinct presentations of the behavioral variety, progressive aphasia, semantic dementia, corticobasal degeneration and progressive supranuclear palsy. Similarly the pathology should be regarded as a spectrum even though histological varieties are distinguished. More than half of FTD pathology is associated with ubiquitin positive and tau negative inclusions that are common in ALS. However the majority of FTD cases do not have ALS clinically and relatively few ALS cases develop FTD. The pathological and biochemical varieties can be dichotomized as tau positive and tau negative pathology and biochemistry. The genetics of the tau positive variety is associated with tau mutations and so far the tau negative variety is not, although some are linked to chromosome-17 also. There is a corresponding clinical dichotomy combining the behavioral variety of FTD presentation with semantic dementia and usually ubiquitin positive tau negative pathology on one hand and the association of primary progressive aphasia and cortical basal degeneration/PSP syndrome with tau positive pathology on the other. The overlap between them is too great to establish two separate diseases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".