MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111915769 · doi:10.1002/alz.042996

Subtype and stage inference identifies distinct atrophy patterns in genetic frontotemporal dementia that MAP onto specific <i>MAPT</i> mutations

2020· article· en· W3111915769 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra L. Young, Martina Bocchetta, David M. Cash, Rhian S. Convery, Katrina Moore, Mollie Neason, David L. Thomas, John C. van Swieten, Barbara Borroni, Raquel Sánchez‐Valle, Fermín Moreno, Robert Laforce, Caroline Graff, Matthis Synofzik, Daniela Galimberti, James B. Rowe, Mario Masellis, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, Elizabeth Finger, Rik Vandenberghe, Alexandre de Mendonça, Fabrizio Tagliavini, Isabel Santana, Simon Ducharme, Christopher Butler, Alexander Gerhard, Johannes Levin, Adrian Danek, Markus Otto, Giovanni B. Frisoni, Roberta Ghidoni, Sandro Sorbi, Steven Williams, Daniel C. Alexander, Jonathan D. Rohrer

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPrion Diseases and Protein Misfolding
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaTau proteinPhenotypeAtrophyGenetic heterogeneityDementiaBiologyGeneticsOncologyGeneDiseasePsychologyAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Mutations in the MAPT gene are known to cause frontotemporal dementia (FTD), but there is heterogeneity in FTD phenotype across individuals. Here we used an unsupervised learning algorithm – Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn) – to relate phenotypic heterogeneity to specific mutations in the MAPT gene. Method SuStaIn evaluates the optimal grouping of individuals into disease subtypes, where each subtype consists of a sequence (set of stages) in which biomarkers transition between different z‐scores. We applied SuStaIn to cross‐sectional regional brain volumes extracted from T1‐weighted MRI data from MAPT carriers in the GENFI study to find the best stratification of the data into subtypes, and the temporal progression of each subtype. We used data from 82 MAPT carriers (57 presymptomatic and 25 symptomatic) to identify subtypes and data from a control group of 300 non‐carriers to derive z‐scores. We subtyped and staged individuals at up to five annual follow‐up visits to assess the consistency of the subtypes longitudinally. We compared the specific mutations and clinical and neuropsychological test scores of individuals assigned to each subtype. Result SuStaIn identified two groups of MAPT carriers with distinct atrophy patterns (Figure 1), which we termed a ‘temporal’ subtype and a ‘frontotemporal’ subtype. The subtype assignments were consistent at follow‐up visits (Table 1): there were no individuals that changed from the temporal to the frontotemporal subtype or vice‐versa. Subtype assignment was strongly associated with IVS10+16, R406W and P301L mutations (Table 2): there was a one‐to‐one mapping between IVS10+16 and R406W mutations and the temporal subtype, and a near one‐to‐one mapping between P301L mutations and the frontotemporal subtype. The temporal subtype was associated with memory problems, whereas the frontotemporal subtype was associated with worse performance on tests of attention and visuospatial skills (Table 3). Conclusion Our results demonstrate the utility of SuStaIn for identifying disease subgroups and associating imaging patterns with genetics and cognition. We show that different MAPT mutations give rise to distinct atrophy patterns and clinical syndromes, providing insights into the underlying disease biology, and potential utility for patient stratification.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicPrion Diseases and Protein MisfoldingFrench-language works237,207