Defining repetitive behaviours in frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive behaviours are common manifestations of frontotemporal dementia (FTD). Patients with FTD exhibit various types of repetitive behaviours with unique behavioural and cognitive substrates, including compulsivity, lack of impulse control, stereotypy and hoarding. Other sources of repetitive behaviours, such as restrictive interests and insistence on sameness, may also be seen in FTD. Although repetitive behaviours are highly prevalent and potentially discriminatory in this population, their expression varies widely between patients, and the field lacks consensus about the classification of these behaviours. Terms used to describe repetitive behaviours in FTD are highly heterogeneous and may lack precise definitions. This lack of harmonization of the definitions for distinct forms of repetitive behaviour limits the ability to differentiate between pathological behaviours and impedes understanding of their underlying mechanisms. This review examines established definitions of well-characterized repetitive behaviours in other neuropsychiatric disorders and proposes operational definitions applicable to patients with FTD. Building on extant models of repetitive behaviours in non-human and lesion work and models of social behavioural changes in FTD, we describe the potential neurocognitive bases for the emergence of different types of repetitive behaviours in FTD and their potential perpetuation by a predisposition towards habit formation. Finally, examples of distinct therapeutic approaches for different forms of repetitive behaviours are highlighted, along with future directions to accurately classify, measure and treat these symptoms when they impair quality of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".