MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898150299 · doi:10.1111/nan.12526

Review: Neuropathology of non‐tau frontotemporal lobar degeneration

2018· review· en· W2898150299 on OpenAlexafffund
Manuela Neumann, Ian R. Mackenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropathology and Applied Neurobiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNOMIS StiftungDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsNeuropathologyFrontotemporal lobar degenerationDegeneration (medical)MedicineNeurosciencePathologyFrontotemporal dementiaPsychologyDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome associated with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) as a relatively consistent neuropathological hallmark feature. However, the discoveries in the past decade of many of the relevant pathological proteins aggregating in human FTD brains in addition to several new FTD causing gene mutations underlined that FTD is a diverse condition on the neuropathological and genetic basis. This resulted in a novel molecular classification of these conditions based on the predominant protein abnormality and allows most cases of FTD to be placed now into one of three broad molecular subgroups; FTLD with tau, TAR DNA-binding protein 43 or FET protein accumulation (FTLD-tau, FTLD-TDP and FTLD-FET respectively). This review will provide an overview of the molecular neuropathology of non-tau FTLD, insights into disease mechanisms gained from the study of human post mortem tissue as well as discussion of current controversies in the field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations150
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropathology and Applied NeurobiologySame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207