MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205303020 · doi:10.1093/brain/awab365

Proposed research criteria for prodromal behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia

2021· article· en· W4205303020 on OpenAlexaff
Megan S. Barker, Reena Gottesman, Masood Manoochehri, Silvia Chapman, Brian S. Appleby, Danielle Brushaber, Katrina L. Devick, Bradford C. Dickerson, Kimiko Domoto‐Reilly, Julie A. Fields, Leah K. Forsberg, Douglas Galasko, Nupur Ghoshal, Jill Goldman, Neill R. Graff‐Radford, Murray Grossman, Hilary W. Heuer, Ging‐Yuek Robin Hsiung, David S. Knopman, John Kornak, Irene Litvan, Ian R. Mackenzie, Joseph C. Masdeu, Belén Pascual, Adam M. Staffaroni, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, Bradley F. Boeve, Adam L. Boxer, Howard J. Rosen, Katherine P. Rankin, Stephanie Cosentino, Katya Rascovsky, Edward D. Huey, Tatiana Foroud, Daniel Kaufer, Walter K. Kremers, Gabriel C. Léger, Chiadi U. Onyike, Aaron Ritter, Erik D. Roberson, Sandra Weıntraub

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaFrontotemporal lobar degenerationApathyPsychologyDisinhibitionNeuropsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognitionDementiaMedicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At present, no research criteria exist for the diagnosis of prodromal behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), though early detection is of high research importance. Thus, we sought to develop and validate a proposed set of research criteria for prodromal bvFTD, termed 'mild behavioural and/or cognitive impairment in bvFTD' (MBCI-FTD). Participants included 72 participants deemed to have prodromal bvFTD; this comprised 55 carriers of a pathogenic mutation known to cause frontotemporal lobar degeneration, and 17 individuals with autopsy-confirmed frontotemporal lobar degeneration. All had mild behavioural and/or cognitive changes, as judged by an evaluating clinician. Based on extensive clinical workup, the prodromal bvFTD group was divided into a Development Group (n = 22) and a Validation Group (n = 50). The Development Group was selected to be the subset of the prodromal bvFTD group for whom we had the strongest longitudinal evidence of conversion to bvFTD, and was used to develop the MBCI-FTD criteria. The Validation Group was the remainder of the prodromal bvFTD group and was used as a separate sample on which to validate the criteria. Familial non-carriers were included as healthy controls (n = 165). The frequencies of behavioural and neuropsychiatric features, neuropsychological deficits, and social cognitive dysfunction in the prodromal bvFTD Development Group and healthy controls were assessed. Based on sensitivity and specificity analyses, seven core features were identified: apathy without moderate-severe dysphoria, behavioural disinhibition, irritability/agitation, reduced empathy/sympathy, repetitive behaviours (simple and/or complex), joviality/gregariousness, and appetite changes/hyperorality. Supportive features include a neuropsychological profile of impaired executive function or naming with intact orientation and visuospatial skills, reduced insight for cognitive or behavioural changes, and poor social cognition. Three core features or two core features plus one supportive feature are required for the diagnosis of possible MBCI-FTD; probable MBCI-FTD requires imaging or biomarker evidence, or a pathogenic genetic mutation. The proposed MBCI-FTD criteria correctly classified 95% of the prodromal bvFTD Development Group, and 74% of the prodromal bvFTD Validation Group, with a false positive rate of <10% in healthy controls. Finally, the MBCI-FTD criteria were tested on a cohort of individuals with prodromal Alzheimer's disease, and the false positive rate of diagnosis was 11-16%. Future research will need to refine the sensitivity and specificity of these criteria, and incorporate emerging biomarker evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations102
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207