VentRa: distinguishing frontotemporal dementia from psychiatric disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume of the lateral ventricles is a reliable and sensitive indicator of brain atrophy and disease progression in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. In this study, we validate our previously developed automated tool using ventricular features (known as VentRa) for the classification of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia versus a mixed cohort of neurodegenerative, vascular and psychiatric disorders from a clinically representative independent dataset. Lateral ventricles were segmented for 1110 subjects-14 behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, 30 other frontotemporal dementia, 70 Lewy body disease, 898 Alzheimer's disease, 62 vascular brain injury and 36 primary psychiatric disorder from the publicly accessible National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center dataset to assess the performance of VentRa. Using ventricular features to discriminate behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia subjects from primary psychiatric disorders, VentRa achieved an accuracy rate of 84%, a sensitivity rate of 71% and a specificity rate of 89%. VentRa was able to identify behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia from a mixed age-matched cohort (i.e. other frontotemporal dementia, Lewy body disease, Alzheimer's disease, vascular brain injury and primary psychiatric disorders) and to correctly classify other disorders as 'not compatible with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia' with a specificity rate of 83%. The specificity rates against each of the other individual cohorts were 80% for other frontotemporal dementia, 83% for Lewy body disease, 83% for Alzheimer's disease, 84% for vascular brain injury and 89% for primary psychiatric disorders. VentRa is a robust and generalizable tool with potential usefulness for improving the diagnostic certainty of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, particularly for the differential diagnosis with primary psychiatric disorders.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".