An International Needs Assessment of Caregivers for Frontotemporal Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To guide development of public awareness and caregiver support resources for frontotemporal dementia (FTD) syndromes. METHODS: We used an online survey to explore their needs. The survey was self-administered by self-identified, English-speaking caregivers for patients with FTD in several countries. RESULTS: Of 79 caregiver respondents, approximately half were caring for patients with behavioural variant FTD or semantic dementia. The most common initial symptoms were Changes in Thinking and Judgment. Half of the respondents identified "failure to recognize the early stage of illness as a dementia" as the most troublesome aspect. Accordingly, over 40% of respondents had difficulty obtaining an accurate diagnosis for the patient. Caregivers prioritized family counseling and the public educational message that dementia can affect young people. CONCLUSION: The largest international survey of FTD caregivers to-date showed that support is needed for all family members adapting to the shock of early-onset dementia, and this may be most readily provided online.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".