MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040612189 · doi:10.1177/0891988708316856

Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia and Primary Progressive Aphasia

2008· article· en· W2040612189 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah J. Banks, Sandra Weıntraub

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingNorthwestern University
KeywordsPrimary progressive aphasiaFrontotemporal dementiaAphasiaDementiaPsychologyAphasiologyMoodSemantic dementiaPsychiatryDiseaseMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuropsychiatric symptoms are well defined in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia but are not as well studied in primary progressive aphasia. This study compared caregiver reported neuropsychiatric symptoms in these 2 forms of dementia at short and long disease duration. Patients with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia had more symptoms than patients with primary progressive aphasia. However, when divided by duration of disease, patients with primary progressive aphasia with long duration had a similar number of symptoms to patients with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia at either duration. Furthermore, this group of patients with primary progressive aphasia had more symptoms typical of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia and less mood-related symptoms which were more common in patients with primary progressive aphasia with shorter duration. This study illustrates the emergence of neuropsychiatric symptoms as primary progressive aphasia progresses and highlights the increasing overlap with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia because the disease affects areas outside of the language network.

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)0.000
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations78
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and NeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207