MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158292481 · doi:10.1093/brain/awl367

Loss of insight in frontotemporal dementia, corticobasal degeneration and progressive supranuclear palsy

2007· article· en· W2158292481 on OpenAlexaff
Fiadhnait O’Keeffe, Brian Murray, R. F. Coen, Paul M. Dockree, Mark A. Bellgrove, Hugh Garavan, Timothy Lynch, Ian H. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersIrish Research CouncilHigher Education Authority
KeywordsProgressive supranuclear palsyCorticobasal degenerationFrontotemporal dementiaPsychologyNeurocognitiveNeuropsychologyCognitionSemantic dementiaEmpathyDementiaClinical psychologyApathyFrontotemporal lobar degenerationCognitive psychologyAudiologyPsychiatryMedicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loss of insight is one of the core features of frontal/behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (FTD). FTD shares many clinical and pathological features with corticobasal degeneration (CBD) and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). The aim of this study was to investigate awareness of cognitive deficits in FTD, CBD and PSP using a multidimensional approach to assessment, which examines metacognitive knowledge of the disorders, online monitoring of errors (emergent awareness) and ability to accurately predict performance on future tasks (anticipatory awareness). Thirty-five patients (14 FTD, 11 CBD and 10 PSP) and 20 controls were recruited. Results indicated that loss of insight was a feature of each of the three patient groups. FTD patients were most impaired on online monitoring of errors compared to the other two patient groups. Linear regression analysis demonstrated that different patterns of neuropsychological performance and behavioural rating scores predicted insight deficits across the three putative awareness categories. Furthermore, higher levels of depression were associated with poor anticipatory awareness, reduced empathy was related to impaired metacognitive awareness and impaired recognition of emotional expression in faces was associated with both metacognitive and anticipatory awareness deficits. The results are discussed in terms of neurocognitive models of awareness and different patterns of neurobiological decline in the separate patient groups.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 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

Citations187
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207