F24 Differences in companion and subject ratings of subjects' behaviour using the frontal systems behaviour scale (FrSBe)- findings from the track-hd study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background TRACK-HD is a multi-centre, longitudinal study investigating a range of motor, cognitive, neuropsychiatric and imaging measures as potential biomarkers for clinical trials in Huntington9s disease (HD). The neuropsychiatric battery includes the Frontal Systems Behaviour Scale (FrSBe), a 46-item scale measuring behaviours associated with damage to the frontal lobes of the brain. In addition to subjects rating their own behaviour on the FrSBe, companions also rated subjects9 behaviour. This provided an opportunity to investigate HD patients9 insight into their behaviour by studying discrepancies between subject and companion ratings. Method 225 TRACK-HD subjects (62 premanifest gene carriers far from onset, 52 near to onset, 70 stage 1 HD and 41 stage 2 HD) completed the FrSBe. In addition, 164 companions (77 of premanifest subjects and 87 of early HD subjects) rated subjects9 behaviour with the FrSBe. Results Companion ratings indicate a worsening of FrSBe scores with disease progression, especially in subjects with manifest HD. In contrast, subjects9 self ratings did not show the same deterioration in FrSBe scores across the pre-HD and stage 1 subgroups, with the biggest discrepancy between subject and companion ratings at stage 1 HD. Surprisingly, self-ratings of stage 2 subjects were markedly worse than those at stage 1, almost eliminating this discrepancy between companion and self-ratings. Companion FrSBe ratings correlated more strongly with objective measures of cognitive and behavioural function than did subjects own ratings. Conclusion The existence of a discrepancy between companion and subjects9 own ratings using the FrSBe in stage 1 HD but not in those with more advanced disease suggests that denial (as a psychological defence mechanism) is a more likely explanation than a loss of insight secondary to cognitive impairment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".