Shorter disease duration in females with sporadic frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Previous reported sex differences on disease duration (DD) of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) have been inconsistent and lack the comparison between genetic and sporadic FTD. Our aim was to study the difference in disease duration between males and females in genetic and sporadic FTD. Method Mortality data was obtained from 61 deceased patients with genetic FTD (52% male) and 117 deceased patients with sporadic FTD (64% male) from the international FTD cohort previously reported by de Boer et al., 2021. The age at symptom onset (AAO), age at death (AAD) and the DD (defined as the time between age at symptom onset and age at death) were compared between males and females in the genetic and sporadic FTD group using Mann Whitney U tests. Result Genetic FTD did not show significant sex differences in AAO, AAD and DD (p = 0.3, p = 0.3, p = 0.8 respectively, Figure 1). In sporadic FTD, the AAO and AAD did not significantly differ between males and females (p = 0.8 and p = 0.2 respectively). The DD in the sporadic FTD group was significantly shorter in females (median DD 7.0 years) in comparison to males (median DD 8.0 years, p = 0.01, Figure 2). Conclusion In this study we show that females with sporadic FTD have a shorter disease duration than males whereas in genetic FTD the disease duration does not differ between sex. These findings suggest the existence of sex‐related differences in the disease course of sporadic FTD. We urge the need for international epidemiological FTD studies to further explore the role of sex in both genetic and sporadic FTD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".