MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036201549 · doi:10.1097/wad.0b013e31806547eb

The Diagnosis and Course of Frontotemporal Dementia

2007· article· en· W2036201549 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Kertesz, Mervin Blair, Paul McMonagle, David G. Muñoz

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaProgressive supranuclear palsyPrimary progressive aphasiaCorticobasal degenerationSemantic dementiaPsychologyDementiaCohortMedicinePediatricsPathologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The course of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is examined in a prospective, incipient clinical cohort. Three hundred nineteen patients were followed yearly for an average of 3.6 years. The relative frequencies at presentation were Behavioral variety (FTD-bv) 37.6%, Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA) 31.6%, possible PPA 10.6%, Corticobasal Syndrome (CBDS) and Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP) 8.1%, Semantic Dementia (SD) 6.6%, and possible FTD 5.3%. The age of onset was significantly lower in the FTD-bv and SD groups than in the rest, but survival and sex distribution was similar in all groups. The evolution is characterized by the appearance of additional FTD syndromes in two-thirds of the patients. A significant association of SD with FTD-bv and CBDS/PSP with PPA was found. The Frontal Behavioral Inventory was highly sensitive and specific for FTD-bv. Visuospatial function was preserved except in CBDS/PSP. The clinical diagnosis showed a positive predictive value of 87% against autopsy in 67 patients. Multiple syndromes increase the likelihood of FTD pathology. In conclusion, the clinical associations follow the tau-negative and tau-positive pathologic dichotomy to some extent, but there is too much overlap to consider the clinical groups or their associations 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations107
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer Disease & Associated DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207