Comparative analysis of cognitive function and neuropsychiatric behavior between Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences of cognitive impairment and neuropsychiatric behavior disturbances between Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) patients, as well as their relationships with dementia severity. Methods A total of 38 FTD patients and 46 AD patients were recruited in this study．The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were used to evaluate the degree of cognitive impairments. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire Form (NPI) and Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI) were used to measure behavioral disturbances. The 21-items Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-21) was used to evaluate the mental or emotional state of patients. Clinical dementia rating scale (CDR) was used to divide the dementia severity. Results FTD patients were younger （(70.13±8.36) years vs (66.46±7.04) years, t=2.124，P=0.037), earlier at age of onset ((68.58±8.51) years vs (64.43±6.82) years, t=2.396， P=0.019), with lower MoCA scores (12.50（8.00， 16.25）vs 17.00（10.75， 21.00）, Z=-2.428, P=0.015), higher NPI (15.00（7.00，25.50）vs 9.50（4.00，17.75）, Z=-2.251, P=0.024), FBI (21.00（13.00，27.00）vs 16.00（10.75，23.00）, Z=-2.159, P=0.031), FBI-A (13.00 （8.00，16.00）vs 9.00（6.00，12.00） Z=-2.159, P=0.041), FBI-B (9.00（7.00，14.00） vs 7.00（3.00，11.00）, Z=-2.051, P=0.040) and HAMD-21 scores (7.00（2.75，14.00）vs 5.00 （3.00，8.00）， Z=-2.061, P=0.039). A detail analysis of different cognitive domains showed the executive functions (Z=-2.140, P=0.032), language (Z=-3.357, P=0.001), abstraction (Z=-2.498, P=0.012) and delayed recall (Z=-4.317, P=0.000) of the MoCA scale were lower in FTD patients than that in AD patients, while AD patients had lower scores in memory（Z=-1.999, P=0.046） and orientation（Z=-2.941, P=0.003）of the MMSE scale. Within the subscale scores of the NPI, the agitation (Z=-3.255, P=0.001), disinhibition (Z=-3.093, P=0.002) and irritability (Z=-2.214, P=0.027) scores were higher in FTD patients than in AD patients. The total scores of NPI (r=0.279, P=0.010), FBI (r=0.353, P=0.001), FBI-A (r=0.386, P=0.000) and FBI-B (r=0.273, P=0.012) were positively correlated with the CDR scores, whereas MoCA scores were negatively correlated with the CDR scores (r=-0.760, P=0.000). The subscale scores on MoCA and NPI areas changed corresponding with dementia severity in both groups. Conclusions The cognitive function, behavioral and psychological symptoms between FTD and AD patients are different. FTD patients have poorer executive function, language, abstraction and delayed recall ability, whereas AD patients perform worse in memory and orientation. With the progression of the disease, FTD patients gradually emerged disorientation, while the cognitive impairment in AD patients almost affected all the areas. FTD patients are more likely to have agitation, disinhibition and irritability behavior, and AD patients are more likely to have depression in the late stage. Dynamic evaluation of the cognitive function, behavioral and psychological symptoms in clinical practice can help to distinguish FTD and AD. Key words: Frontotemporal dementia; Alzheimer disease; Cognition disorders; Conduct disorder; Severity of illness index; Diagnosis, differential
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".