Topographical Patterns of Lobar Atrophy in Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Fronto-temporal dementia (FTD) designates a group of relatively common neurodegenerative disorders. The aim of this study was to characterize the patterns of brain atrophy in FTD compared to Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: A novel semiautomatic volumetric MRI analysis method was applied to measure regional brain volumes in FTD (n = 15; behavioural variant n = 9, language variant n = 6) in contrast with AD patients (n = 15) and age-matched controls (NC) (n = 15). FTD and AD patients were matched on demographic measures and Mini Mental State Examination scores. RESULTS: Significant atrophy was present in the frontal and anterior temporal lobes of subjects with FTD compared to AD (p = 0.02; effect size = 1.11) and compared to NC (p < 0.001; effect size = 1.86). Severe atrophy of the left anterior temporal region distinguished the language variant. AD patients, by contrast, did not differ from NC for frontal lobe volume but had smaller anterior temporal lobes (p = 0.03). Both dementia groups had medial temporal lobe atrophy of similar magnitude. A logistic regression model including 4 regional measures correctly classified 100% of subjects. CONCLUSION: FTD can be reliably differentiated from AD by virtue of a topographical pattern of atrophy involving the frontal lobes and anterior temporal regions. Medial temporal lobe volumes do not distinguish FTD from AD.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".