Cognitive and olfactory function profiles of frontotemporal lobar degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe the cognitive and olfactory function profiles of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). Methods A total of 52 FTLD patients admitted to Tianjin Huanhu Hospital from July 2014 to April 2017 were enrolled. Cognitive function was assessed by the Mini⁃Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and neuropsychiatric behavior was assessed by Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Quantitative olfactory function was assessed by T&T olfactory meter and olfactory fMRI, and changes in glucose metabolism in brain tissues were assessed by 18F⁃fluoro⁃2⁃deoxy⁃D⁃glucose (18F⁃PDG) PET. Results The cognitive dysfunction of 52 patients was mainly manifested as executive dysfunction (71.15%, 37/52), disinhibition (59.62%, 31/52), indifference (44.23%, 23/52), lack of empathy (40.38%, 21/52), memory loss (32.69%, 17/52), hyperstomia (25%, 13/52) and language disorder (3.85%, 2/52). MMSE score was 18 (4, 20), MoCA score was 11 (3, 15), and visuospatial and executive function, attention, language function, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation were all lower than normal reference values. NPI score was 24 (7, 39), and the main manifestations were apathetic, irritable, excited, and high/euphoric. According to the T&T olfactory meter recognition domain, one case (3.45%) had normal sense of smell, 12 cases (41.38%) had mild hyposmia, 9 cases (31.03%) had moderate hyposmia, 5 cases (17.24%) had severe hyposmia, and 2 cases (6.90%) had anosmia. Olfactory fMRI showed that patients developed adaptation to odor when olfactory stimulation with gas concentration was successively from low to high (0.10%, 0.33%, 1.00%). 18F⁃FDG PET showed symmetric (2 cases) or asymmetric (4 cases) predominance of the frontal and/or temporal lobes. Conclusions In FTLD patients, executive dysfunction and neuropsychiatric behavior abnormalities were more common, while memory impairment appeared later. Abnormal olfactory function may also occur, but olfactory adaptation still exists. Neuropsychological test combined with 18F⁃FDG PET is helpful for early diagnosis and differential diagnosis.
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".