Ventricular features as reliable differentiators between bvFTD and other dementias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lateral ventricles are reliable and sensitive indicators of brain atrophy and disease progression in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). We aimed to investigate whether an automated tool using ventricular features could improve diagnostic accuracy in bvFTD across neurodegenerative diseases. METHODS: Using 678 subjects -69 bvFTD, 38 semantic variant, 37 primary non-fluent aphasia, 218 amyloid + mild cognitive impairment, 74 amyloid + Alzheimer's Dementia and 242 normal controls- with a total of 2750 timepoints, lateral ventricles were segmented and differences in ventricular features were assessed between bvFTD, normal controls and other dementia cohorts. RESULTS: Ventricular antero-posterior ratio (APR) was the only feature that was significantly different and increased faster in bvFTD compared to all other cohorts. We achieved a 10-fold cross-validation accuracy of 80% (77% sensitivity, 82% specificity) in differentiating bvFTD from all other cohorts with other ventricular features (i.e., total ventricular volume and left-right lateral ventricle ratios), and 76% accuracy using only the single APR feature. DISCUSSION: Ventricular features, particularly the APR, might be reliable and easy-to-implement markers for bvFTD diagnosis. We have made our ventricle feature estimation and bvFTD diagnostic tool publicly available, allowing application of our model in other studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".