The longitudinal evaluation of familial frontotemporal dementia subjects protocol: Framework and methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It is important to establish the natural history of familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (f-FTLD) and provide clinical and biomarker data for planning these studies, particularly in the asymptomatic phase. METHODS: The Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects protocol was designed to enroll and follow at least 300 subjects for more than at least three annual visits who are members of kindreds with a mutation in one of the three most common f-FTLD genes-microtubule-associated protein tau, progranulin, or chromosome 9 open reading frame 72. RESULTS: We present the theoretical considerations of f-FTLD and the aims/objectives of this protocol. We also describe the design and methodology for evaluating and rating subjects, in which detailed clinical and neuropsychological assessments are performed, biofluid samples are collected, and magnetic resonance imaging scans are performed using a standard protocol. DISCUSSION: These data and samples, which are available to interested investigators worldwide, will facilitate planning for upcoming disease-modifying therapeutic trials in f-FTLD.
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 | 0.054 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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".