The <scp>CBI‐R</scp> detects early behavioural impairment in genetic frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Behavioural dysfunction is a key feature of genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD) but validated clinical scales measuring behaviour are lacking at present. METHODS: We assessed behaviour using the revised version of the Cambridge Behavioural Inventory (CBI-R) in 733 participants from the Genetic FTD Initiative study: 466 mutation carriers (195 C9orf72, 76 MAPT, 195 GRN) and 267 non-mutation carriers (controls). All mutation carriers were stratified according to their global CDR plus NACC FTLD score into three groups: asymptomatic (CDR = 0), prodromal (CDR = 0.5) and symptomatic (CDR = 1+). Mixed-effects models adjusted for age, education, sex and family clustering were used to compare between the groups. Neuroanatomical correlates of the individual domains were assessed within each genetic group. RESULTS: CBI-R total scores were significantly higher in all CDR 1+ mutation carrier groups compared with controls [C9orf72 mean 70.5 (standard deviation 27.8), GRN 56.2 (33.5), MAPT 62.1 (36.9)] as well as their respective CDR 0.5 groups [C9orf72 13.5 (14.4), GRN 13.3 (13.5), MAPT 9.4 (10.4)] and CDR 0 groups [C9orf72 6.0 (7.9), GRN 3.6 (6.0), MAPT 8.5 (13.3)]. The C9orf72 and GRN 0.5 groups scored significantly higher than the controls. The greatest impairment was seen in the Motivation domain for the C9orf72 and GRN symptomatic groups, whilst in the symptomatic MAPTgroup, the highest-scoring domains were Stereotypic and Motor Behaviours and Memory and Orientation. Neural correlates of each CBI-R domain largely overlapped across the different mutation carrier groups. CONCLUSIONS: The CBI-R detects early behavioural change in genetic FTD, suggesting that it could be a useful measure within future clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".