MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382182201 · doi:10.1097/wco.0000000000001182

Atypical forms of Alzheimer's disease: patients not to forget

2023· review· en· W4382182201 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Montembeault, Raffaella Migliaccio

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Neurology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary progressive aphasiaNeuroimagingNeurosciencePosterior cortical atrophyMedicinePsychologyDiseasePathologyFrontotemporal dementiaDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this paper is to summarize the latest work on neuroimaging in atypical Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients and to emphasize innovative aspects in the clinic and research. The paper will mostly cover language (logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia; lvPPA), visual (posterior cortical atrophy; PCA), behavioral (bvAD) and dysexecutive (dAD) variants of AD. RECENT FINDINGS: MRI and PET can detect and differentiate typical and atypical AD variants, and novel imaging markers like brain iron deposition, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), cortical mean diffusivity, and brain total creatine can also contribute. Together, these approaches have helped to characterize variant-specific distinct imaging profiles. Even within each variant, various subtypes that capture the heterogeneity of cases have been revealed. Finally, in-vivo pathology markers have led to significant advances in the atypical AD neuroimaging field. SUMMARY: Overall, the recent neuroimaging literature on atypical AD variants contribute to increase knowledge of these lesser-known AD variants and are key to generate atypical variant-specific clinical trial endpoints, which are required for inclusion of these patients in clinical trials assessing treatments. In return, studying these patients can inform the neurobiology of various cognitive functions, such as language, executive, memory, and visuospatial abilities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in NeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207