MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychiatric Presentations of <i>C9orf72</i> Mutation: What Are the Diagnostic Implications for Clinicians?

2017· review· en· W2594909988 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Ducharme, Sepideh N. Bajestan, Bradford C. Dickerson, Valerie Voon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropsychiatry · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsC9orf72ManiaPsychiatryFrontotemporal dementiaSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychosisBipolar disorderDepression (economics)CatatoniaPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyDementiaCognitionInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The C9orf72 mutation was identified as the most frequent genetic cause of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). In light of multiple reports of predominant psychiatric presentations of FTD secondary to C9orf72 mutation, the American Neuropsychiatric Association Committee on Research reviewed all studies on psychiatric aspects of this mutation to identify clinically relevant features for diagnosis. The most common psychiatric presentation is psychosis (21%-56%), with delusions, and/or multimodal hallucinations. Other presentations include late-onset mania and depression with cognitive impairment or catatonia. However, the frequency of C9orf72 mutations is low in typical schizophrenia or bipolar disorders (<0.1%). The authors provide clinical guidance on diagnosis and genetic testing.

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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations86
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuropsychiatrySame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207