Co-Occurrence of Language and Behavioural Change in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the co-occurrence of language and behavioural impairment in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) spectrum pathology. METHODS: Eighty-one dementia patients with pathological confirmation of FTLD were identified. Anonymized clinical records from patients' first assessment were rated for language and behavioural features from frontotemporal dementia consensus criteria, primary progressive aphasia (PPA) criteria and 1998 FTLD criteria. RESULTS: Over 90% of patients with FTLD pathology exhibited a combination of at least one behavioural and one language feature. Changes in language, in particular, were commonly accompanied by behavioural change. Notably, the majority of patients who displayed language features characteristic of semantic variant PPA exhibited 'early perseverative, stereotyped or compulsive/ritualistic behaviour'. Moreover, 'executive/generation deficits with relative sparing of memory and visuospatial functions' occurred in most patients with core features of non-fluent variant PPA. CONCLUSION: Behavioural and language symptoms frequently co-occur in patients with FTLD pathology. Current classifications, which separate behavioural and language syndromes, do not reflect this co-occurrence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".