Bipolar disorder and frontotemporal dementia: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To detail the biological, clinical and neurocognitive characteristics differentiating bipolar disorder (BD) from frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and to investigate whether BD is a risk factor for FTD. METHODS: A total of 16 studies were included in this systematic review. Five studies described biological and/or neurocognitive characteristics between patients with BD and FTD, and 11 studies investigated whether BD was a risk factor for FTD. RESULTS: Individuals with FTD presented higher levels of serum neurofilament light chain, greater grey matter reduction in frontal, parietal and temporal lobes, and increased slow wave oscillations in channels F3, F4, T3, T5, T4 and T6 within an electroencephalogram (EEG), relative to individuals with BD. Patients with FTD presented greater deficits in executive function and theory of mind compared to patients with BD in a euthymic state, and more deficits in verbal fluency compared to patients with BD in a current mood episode. Patients with BD in a current mood episode showed greater impairment in attention, working memory, verbal memory and executive function relative to individuals with FTD. In addition, retrospective studies showed that 10.2%-11.6% of patients with behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD) had a preceding history of BD. CONCLUSION: Biological and neurocognitive characteristics help to distinguish between BD and FTD, and it may help to reach a more precise diagnosis. In addition, individuals with BD are at higher risk of developing FTD. More studies are needed to identify the predictors of the conversion between BD to FTD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".