MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034578234 · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2020.05.016

Altered phobic reactions in frontotemporal dementia: A behavioural and neuroanatomical analysis

2020· article· en· W3034578234 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel Jiménez, Rebecca L. Bond, Maï‐Carmen Requena‐Komuro, Harri Sivasathiaseelan, Charles R. Marshall, Lucy L. Russell, Caroline Greaves, Katrina Moore, Ione Woollacott, Rachelle Shafei, Chris JD Hardy, Jonathan D. Rohrer, Jason D. Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueCortex · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUCLH Biomedical Research CentreUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustAlzheimer’s Research UKComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaBrain Research TrustWolfson FoundationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research CentreAlzheimer SocietyBarts CharityAlzheimer's SocietyWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaPsychologyDementiaNeuroscienceClinical psychologyCognitive psychologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Abnormal behavioural and physiological reactivity to emotional stimuli is a hallmark of frontotemporal dementia (FTD), particularly the behavioural variant (bvFTD). As part of this repertoire, altered phobic responses have been reported in some patients with FTD but are poorly characterised. METHODS: We collected data (based on caregiver reports) concerning the prevalence and nature of any behavioural changes related to specific phobias in a cohort of patients representing canonical syndromes of FTD and Alzheimer's disease (AD), relative to healthy older controls. Neuroanatomical correlates of altered phobic reactivity were assessed using voxel-based morphometry. RESULTS: 46 patients with bvFTD, 20 with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, 25 with non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, 29 with AD and 55 healthy age-matched individuals participated. Changes in specific phobia were significantly more prevalent in the combined FTD cohort (15.4% of cases) and in the bvFTD group (17.4%) compared both to healthy controls (3.6%) and patients with AD (3.5%). Attenuation of phobic reactivity was reported for individuals in all participant groups, however new phobias developed only in the FTD cohort. Altered phobic reactivity was significantly associated with relative preservation of grey matter in left posterior middle temporal gyrus, right temporo-occipital junction and right anterior cingulate gyrus, brain regions previously implicated in contextual decoding, salience processing and reward valuation. CONCLUSION: Altered phobic reactivity is a relatively common issue in patients with FTD, particularly bvFTD. This novel paradigm of strong fear experience has broad implications: clinically, for diagnosis and patient well-being; and neurobiologically, for our understanding of the pathophysiology of aversive sensory signal processing in FTD and the neural mechanisms of fear more generally.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCortexSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207