Extending the phenotypic spectrum assessed by the CDR plus NACC FTLD in genetic frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to expand the range of the frontotemporal dementia (FTD) phenotypes assessed by the Clinical Dementia Rating Dementia Staging Instrument plus National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Behavior and Language Domains (CDR plus NACC FTLD). METHODS: Neuropsychiatric and motor domains were added to the standard CDR plus NACC FTLD generating a new CDR plus NACC FTLD-NM scale. This was assessed in 522 mutation carriers and 310 mutation-negative controls from the Genetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI). RESULTS: The new scale led to higher global severity scores than the CDR plus NACC FTLD: 1.4% of participants were now considered prodromal rather than asymptomatic, while 1.3% were now considered symptomatic rather than asymptomatic or prodromal. No participants with a clinical diagnosis of an FTD spectrum disorder were classified as asymptomatic using the new scales. DISCUSSION: Adding new domains to the CDR plus NACC FTLD leads to a scale that encompasses the wider phenotypic spectrum of FTD with further work needed to validate its use more widely. Highlights: The new Clinical Dementia Rating Dementia Staging Instrument plus National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Behavior and Language Domains neuropsychiatric and motor (CDR plus NACC FTLD-NM) rating scale was significantly positively correlated with the original CDR plus NACC FTLD and negatively correlated with the FTD Rating Scale (FRS).No participants with a clinical diagnosis in the frontotemporal dementia spectrum were classified as asymptomatic with the new CDR plus NACC FTLD-NM rating scale.Individuals had higher global severity scores with the addition of the neuropsychiatric and motor domains.A receiver operating characteristic analysis of symptomatic diagnosis showed nominally higher areas under the curve for the new scales.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".