Analysis of brain atrophy and local gene expression in genetic frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frontotemporal dementia is a heterogeneous neurodegenerative disorder characterized by neuronal loss in the frontal and temporal lobes. Despite progress in understanding which genes are associated with the aetiology of frontotemporal dementia, the biological basis of how mutations in these genes lead to cell loss in specific cortical regions remains unclear. In this work, we combined gene expression data for 16 772 genes from the Allen Institute for Brain Science atlas with brain maps of grey matter atrophy in symptomatic C9orf72, GRN and MAPT mutation carriers obtained from the Genetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative study. No significant association was seen between C9orf72, GRN and MAPT expression and the atrophy patterns in the respective genetic groups. After adjusting for spatial autocorrelation, between 1000 and 5000 genes showed a negative or positive association with the atrophy pattern within each individual genetic group, with the most significantly associated genes being TREM2, SSBP3 and GPR158 (negative association in C9Orf72, GRN and MAPT respectively) and RELN, MXRA8 and LPA (positive association in C9Orf72, GRN and MAPT respectively). An overrepresentation analysis identified a negative association with genes involved in mitochondrial function, and a positive association with genes involved in vascular and glial cell function in each of the genetic groups. A set of 423 and 700 genes showed significant positive and negative association, respectively, with atrophy patterns in all three maps. The gene set with increased expression in spared cortical regions was enriched for neuronal and microglial genes, while the gene set with increased expression in atrophied regions was enriched for astrocyte and endothelial cell genes. Our analysis suggests that these cell types may play a more active role in the onset of neurodegeneration in frontotemporal dementia than previously assumed, and in the case of the positively associated cell marker genes, potentially through emergence of neurotoxic astrocytes and alteration in the blood–brain barrier, respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".