MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122902848 · doi:10.3109/09540261.2013.776949

Management of frontotemporal dementia in mental health and multidisciplinary settings

2013· review· en· W2122902848 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Anne Wylie, Adriana Shnall, Chiadi U. Onyike, Edward D. Huey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Psychiatry · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychiatric care and mental health services
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaPsychiatryManiaBipolar disorderDementiaMoodPsychologyMood disordersDepression (economics)Schizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Multidisciplinary approachDiseasePopulationNeuropsychiatryMedicineMental healthClinical psychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) in the mental health setting and issues pertaining to longitudinal care of this population in a specialist clinic are reviewed. FTD is often misdiagnosed as a psychiatric disorder, most commonly as a mood disorder. FTD has features that overlap with those of major depression, mania, obsessive-compulsive disorder and schizophrenia. We describe these features and how to differentiate FTD from these psychiatric disorders. This paper also describes practical issues in the management of FTD, specifically the issues that clinicians, patients and their families face in managing this disease. Areas of clinical care along the continuum are explored; FTD care involves collaborative management of symptoms and disability, and assisting patients and families in adapting to the disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of PsychiatrySame topicPsychiatric care and mental health servicesFrench-language works237,207