High delay discounting relates to core symptoms and to pulvinar atrophy in frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by behavioural changes and atrophy in brain regions important for decision-making. Computations such as trading off between larger later (LL) and smaller sooner (SS) rewards — called delay discounting in behavioural economics — might be heavily impaired by bvFTD. In this cross-sectional study, our objectives were to investigate (1) whether bvFTD patients show higher delay discounting than healthy controls, (2) whether this maladaptive discounting correlates with impulsivity-related bvFTD symptoms, and (3) in which brain regions atrophy is related to bvFTD’s steeper discounting. BvFTD patients (N=24) and matched controls (N=18) performed two delay discounting tasks: one with monetary rewards and one with food rewards. We compared discount rates (log(k)) in bvFTD patients and controls and tested their correlations with symptoms. We used participants’ structural MRI data and applied whole-brain mediation analyses to investigate brain structures mediating the effect of bvFTD on delay discounting. For both monetary and food rewards, delay discounting was significantly higher in bvFTD patients than in healthy controls. BvFTD patients’ higher discounting of both money and food was associated with their greater disinhibition and eating behaviour changes. Whole-brain mediation analyses revealed that (1) several brain regions (left thalamic pulvinar, left parahippocampal cortex, right temporal lobe) were predictive of steeper discounting of both money and food and (2) grey matter density in these brain regions, including most prominently the medial pulvinar, mediated the effect of bvFTD on discounting. The impulsive preference for sooner rewards captured by delay discounting might constitute a common mechanism of the behavioural symptoms of inhibition deficit and eating behaviour changes in bvFTD. Future studies could further investigate the potential role of medial pulvinar structural modifications as a transdiagnostic marker and a therapeutic target of impulsivity troubles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".