Genuine Memory Deficits as Assessed by the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) in the Behavioural Variant of Frontotemporal Dementia. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) foresee a relative sparing of long-term memory. Although bvFTD patients were thought to report secondary memory deficits associated with prefrontal dysfunctions, some studies indicated the presence of a "genuine memory deficit" related to mesial temporal lobe dysfunctions. Among various neuropsychological tests, the Free and Cue Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) has been recommended to distinguish genuine from apparent amnesia. We conducted a systematic review and a random effect Bayesian meta-analysis to evaluate the nature and severity of memory deficit in bvFTD. Our objective was to determine whether the existing literature offers evidence of genuine or apparent amnesia in patients with bvFTD, as assessed via the FCSRT. On 06/19/2021, we conducted a search across four databases (PMC, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed). We included all studies that evaluated memory performance using the FCSRT in patients with bvFTD, as long as they also included either cognitively unimpaired participants or AD groups. We tested publication bias through the Funnel plot and Egger's test. To assess the quality of studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. We included 16 studies in the meta-analysis. The results showed that bvFTD patients perform better than AD patients (pooled effects between 0.95 and 1.14), as their memory performance stands between AD and control groups (pooled effects between - 2.19 and - 1.25). Moreover, patients with bvFTD present both genuine and secondary memory disorders. As a major limitation of this study, due to our adoption of a rigorous methodology and stringent inclusion criteria, we ended up with just 16 studies. Nonetheless, our robust findings can contribute to the ongoing discussion on international consensus criteria for bvFTD and the selection of appropriate neuropsychological tools to facilitate the differential diagnosis between AD and 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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".