Plasma inflammation for predicting phenotypic conversion and clinical progression of autosomal dominant frontotemporal lobar degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Measuring systemic inflammatory markers may improve clinical prognosis and help identify targetable pathways for treatment in patients with autosomal dominant forms of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). Methods We measured plasma concentrations of IL-6, TNFα and YKL-40 in pathogenic variant carriers ( MAPT, C9orf72, GRN ) and non-carrier family members enrolled in the ARTFL-LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration consortium. We evaluated associations between baseline plasma inflammation and rate of clinical and neuroimaging changes (linear mixed effects models with standardised (z) outcomes). We compared inflammation between asymptomatic carriers who remained clinically normal (‘asymptomatic non-converters’) and those who became symptomatic (‘asymptomatic converters’) using area under the curve analyses. Discrimination accuracy was compared with that of plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL). Results We studied 394 participants (non-carriers=143, C9orf72 =117, GRN =62, MAPT =72). In MAPT , higher TNFα was associated with faster functional decline (B=0.12 (0.02, 0.22), p=0.02) and temporal lobe atrophy. In C9orf72, higher TNFα was associated with faster functional decline (B=0.09 (0.03, 0.16), p=0.006) and cognitive decline (B=−0.16 (−0.22, −0.10), p<0.001), while higher IL-6 was associated with faster functional decline (B=0.12 (0.03, 0.21), p=0.01). TNFα was higher in asymptomatic converters than non-converters (β=0.29 (0.09, 0.48), p=0.004) and improved discriminability compared with plasma NfL alone (ΔR 2 =0.16, p=0.007; NfL: OR=1.4 (1.03, 1.9), p=0.03; TNFα: OR=7.7 (1.7, 31.7), p=0.007). Conclusions Systemic proinflammatory protein measurement, particularly TNFα, may improve clinical prognosis in autosomal dominant FTLD pathogenic variant carriers who are not yet exhibiting severe impairment. Integrating TNFα with markers of neuronal dysfunction like NfL could optimise detection of impending symptom conversion in asymptomatic pathogenic variant carriers and may help personalise therapeutic approaches.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".