Conceptual framework for the definition of preclinical and prodromal frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presymptomatic stages of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are still poorly defined and encompass a long accrual of progressive biological (preclinical) and then clinical (prodromal) changes, antedating the onset of dementia. The heterogeneity of clinical presentations and the different neuropathological phenotypes have prevented a prior clear description of either preclinical or prodromal FTD. Recent advances in therapeutic approaches, at least in monogenic disease, demand a proper definition of these predementia stages. It has become clear that a consensus lexicon is needed to comprehensively describe the stages that anticipate dementia. The goal of the present work is to review existing literature on the preclinical and prodromal phases of FTD, providing recommendations to address the unmet questions, therefore laying out a strategy for operationalizing and better characterizing these presymptomatic disease stages.
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 | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".