[P1–317]: QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG SUBJECTS AND INFORMANTS IN FAMILIAL FRONTOTEMPORAL DEMENTIA: PRELIMINARY DATA IN THE LEFFTDS COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects (LEFFTDS) Consortium involves 8 North American centers with the purpose of evaluating subjects with the 3 most common genetic mutations in familial FTD. We hypothesized that 1) quality of life (QOL) measures for subjects and informants would correlate with clinical status, and 2) QOL ratings for subjects and their informants would be correlated with each other. QOL was assessed using the DEMQOL (self-report) and DEMQOL-proxy (informant reporting on the subject) measures, in which the overall QOL ratings were very good, good, fair and poor. 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. The frequencies of the combined very good/good ratings from the subjects were: CDR=0, 94.8%; 0.5, 75%; and ≥1, 77.1%, whereas the combined very good/good ratings from the informants were: CDR=0, 98.3%; 0.5, 75%; and ≥1, 61.1%. Utilizing a Spearman correlation for the very good, good, and fair/poor (poor was combined with fair due to only 7 ratings being viewed as poor) groups, the subject (n=179) and informant (n=191) QOL scores were found to have a statistically significant, moderate negative correlation to CDR scores (r=-0.4139 and r=-0.4011, respectively). A weighted Kappa analysis comparing the subject and informant QOL reports showed a fair agreement (κ=0.3570). These findings indicate that poorer QOL is associated with poorer clinical status, suggesting that even mild FTD features impact QOL. The fair agreement between subjects and informants on these QOL measures could reflect different degrees of insight on FTD features and the resulting impact on QOL. Additional work on QOL in this cohort will provide more insights on how FTD impacts QOL in subjects and informants, particularly in the phenoconversion from asymptomatic 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".