P.026 Frontal cognitive-behavioural deficits in patients with anti-leucine-rich glioma-inactivated protein 1 antibody encephalitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment is a common manifestation of anti-LGI1 encephalitis and is typically defined as prominent memory deficits. We frequently encounter frontal cognitive-behavioural deficits when evaluating these patients, but this has yet to be well described in the literature. Methods: Patients with anti-LGI1 encephalitis were retrospectively identified from three tertiary centres in Toronto, Ontario between 2013 and 2022. Their medical records were evaluated and frontal features were categorized based on diagnostic criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). Results: Nineteen patients were identified (median age 60 years [range 18–84]; 10 [52.6%] male). Eighteen (94.7%) had frontal cognitive-behavioural symptoms. Two developed these symptoms during treatment with steroids and were excluded from further analysis. The remaining 16 presented with behavioural disinhibition (n=13), apathy or inertia (n=6), perseverative, stereotyped or compulsive/ritualistic behaviours (n=6), hyperorality and dietary changes (n=4), a neuropsychological profile with predominant deficits in executive tasks (n=4), and loss of sympathy or empathy (n=4). Nine (47.3%) met diagnostic criteria for possible bvFTD. Anterograde memory impairment was common (n=14). Of the 16 patients with frontal features, 6 had faciobrachial dystonic seizures. Conclusions: Patients with anti-LGI1 encephalitis exhibit frontal cognitive-behavioural symptoms in addition to memory impairment. Clinicians should consider anti-LGI1 encephalitis in the differential diagnosis of bvFTD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".