MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2766697035 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.934

[P2–281]: CAREGIVER BURDEN IN FAMILIAL FRONTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA SUBJECTS: PRELIMINARY DATA IN THE LEFFTDS COHORT

2017· article· en· W2766697035 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha R. Hughes, Bradley F. Boeve, Howard J. Rosen, Adam L. Boxer, Kendrick J. Calvert, Christina Dheel, Bradford C. Dickerson, Julie A. Fields, Ralitza H. Gavrilova, Nupur Ghoshal, Jill Goldman, Neill R. Graff‐Radford, Murray Grossman, Hilary W. Heuer, Ging‐Yuek Robin Hsiung, Edward D. Huey, David J. Irwin, David S. Knopman, John Kornak, Ruth Kraft, Joel H. Kramer, Ian R. Mackenzie, Bruce L. Miller, Matt R. Miller, Katherine Rankin, Jeremy A. Syrjanen, Sandra Weıntraub, Zbigniew K. Wszołek

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaClinical Dementia RatingMedicineCohortDementiaWilcoxon signed-rank testCaregiver burdenInternal medicineMann–Whitney U testDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects (LEFFTDS) Consortium involves 8 North American centers with the purpose of evaluating subjects annually with the 3 most common genetic mutations in familial FTD. We hypothesized that caregiver burden scores would increase among symptomatic FTD subjects when followed longitudinally. The Zarit Caregiver Interview (ZCI) was completed by all informants. Scores are interpreted as follows: 0–21 little or no burden, 21–40 is mild to moderate burden, and 41–60 is moderate to severe burden. Subjects were assessed by a clinician using a modified version of the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), with a score of 0 reflecting normal neurologic functioning, 0.5 reflecting minimally symptomatic FTD, and ≥1 reflecting overtly symptomatic FTD. Among 188 subjects evaluated at Visit 1 in whom the ZCI was completed, the mean (SD) scores were as follows: CDR=0 − 6.1 (8.8), CDR=0.5 − 8.5 (8.3), CDR≥1 − 27.8 (14.7). Forty-three (23%) have been evaluated at Visit 2, with mean (SD) scores as follows: CDR=0 − 5.5 (5.5), CDR=0.5 − 17.2 (14.6), CDR≥1 − 30.2 (15.0). Among the 43 with ZCI scores at both Visits 1 and 2, the median (Q1, Q3) score at Visit 1 was 11 (2, 24) and at Visit 2 was 13 (4, 26). Using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test to compare ZCI scores, there were trends for increasing burden among CDR=0.5 (p=0.078) and all subjects (p=0.077). As expected, analyses using cross-sectional data suggest that caregiver burden increases with increasing CDR score, albeit still within the low burden range. Longitudinal data in a sample of subjects evaluated twice over 1 year suggests caregiver burden is trending upward, particularly among CDR=0.5 subjects. Additional longitudinal data in this cohort will provide insights on whether increasing caregiver burden may predict imminent phenoconversion from asymptomatic to minimally symptomatic FTD, and minimally symptomatic to overtly symptomatic FTD.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research→French-language works237,207→