MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3111608640 · doi:10.1002/alz.045768

The Free Cued Selective Reminding Test detects episodic memory impairment in the presymptomatic period of familial frontotemporal dementia within the GENFI cohort

2020· article· en· W3111608640 on OpenAlexaff
Jackie M. Poos, Lucy L. Russell, Georgia Peakman, Katrina Moore, Caroline Greaves, Martina Bocchetta, Lize C. Jiskoot, Fermín Moreno, Raquel Sánchez‐Valle, Barbara Borroni, Robert Laforce, Mario Masellis, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, Caroline Graff, Daniela Galimberti, James B. Rowe, Elizabeth Finger, Matthis Synofzik, Rik Vandenberghe, Alexandre de Mendonça, Fabrizio Tagliavini, Isabel Santana, Simon Ducharme, Christopher Butler, Alexander Gerhard, Johannes Levin, Adrian Danek, Markus Otto, Janne M. Papma, Esther van den Berg, John C. van Swieten, Jonathan D. Rohrer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversité Laval
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaPsychologyC9orf72CohortRecallEpisodic memoryDementiaFree recallAudiologyMedicineInternal medicinePsychiatryCognitionDiseaseCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Episodic memory is increasingly reported in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and it has been suggested to differ between genetic forms of FTD. However, systematic investigations of episodic memory in familial FTD, and specifically the presymptomatic stage, are scarce. This cross‐sectional study investigates performance on the Free Cued and Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) in the Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia Initiative (GENFI), a large familial FTD cohort. Method 685 participants were tested with the FCSRT (52 presymptomatic and 21 symptomatic MAPT, 135 presymptomatic and 42 symptomatic GRN, 109 presymptomatic and 63 symptomatic C9orf72 mutation carriers and 263 non‐carriers). The presymptomatic mutation carriers were split into an early and late presymptomatic period (more than or within ten years of expected symptom onset). Groups were compared using linear regression models, adjusted for age and education, with bootstrapping. Result Performance on all FCSRT test scores had a negative correlation with age (0.18 > r < 0.38) and immediate free recall (r = 0.21), immediate total recall (r = 0.14) and delayed free recall (r = 0.24) had a positive correlation with education. All symptomatic mutation carrier groups scored significantly lower than controls on immediate free recall (MAPT: −2.54 ± 1.52; GRN: −3.15 ± 2.13; C9orf72: −2.67 ± 1.32), immediate total recall (MAPT: −4.83 ± 4.42; GRN: −6.65 ± 5.69; C9orf72: −3.63 ± 3.99), delayed free recall (MAPT: −2.66 ± 1.98; GRN: −3.08 ± 2.17; C9orf72: −2.64 ± 1.41) and delayed total recall (MAPT: −4.32 ± 4.49; GRN: −6.48 ± 6.63; C9orf72: −4.32 ± 4.49). In the presymptomatic group, C9orf72 participants performed significantly lower on immediate (late: −0.75 ± 0.93) and delayed free recall (early: −0.11 ± 1.12; late: −0.57 ± 1.14) measures. Conclusion Episodic memory is impaired in genetic FTD, with decline already starting in the presymptomatic period in C9orf72 mutation carriers. The differences between mutation carriers groups in free versus cued recall formats corroborates the notion that the clinical presentation of episodic memory deficits (i.e. as a result of executive impairment versus “true” consolidation problems) in FTD depend on the underlying mutation, and thus atrophy pattern. Our next step is to replicate results in a larger dataset and correlate performance on the FCSRT to grey matter density in each genetic group using voxel‐based morphometry.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→