Frontotemporal Dementia Subtyping using Machine Learning, Multivariate Statistics, and Neuroimaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) is a prevalent form of early-onset dementia characterized by progressive neurodegeneration. It encompasses a group of heterogeneous disorders, including behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA), and semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (svPPA). Due to disease heterogeneity and overlapping symptoms, diagnosis of FTD and its subtypes still poses a challenge. Magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used to support the diagnosis of FTD. Using machine learning and multivariate statistics, we tested whether brain atrophy patterns are associated with severity of cognitive impairment, whether this relationship differs between the phenotypic subtypes, and whether we could use these brain patterns to classify patients according to their FTD variant. A total of 136 patients (70 bvFTD, 36 svPPA, 30 nfvPPA) from the frontotemporal lobar degeneration neuroimaging initiative (FTLDNI) database underwent brain MRI and clinical and neuropsychological examination. Deformation-based morphometry (DBM), which offers increased sensitivity to subtle local differences in structural image contrasts was used to estimate regional cortical and subcortical atrophy. Atlas-based associations between DBM values and performance across different cognitive tests were assessed using partial least squares (PLS). We then applied linear regression models to discern the group differences regarding the relationship between atrophy and cognitive decline in the three FTD phenotypes. Lastly, we assessed whether the combination of neural and behavioral patterns in the latent variables identified in the PLS analysis could be used as features in a machine-learning model to predict FTD subtypes in patients. Results revealed four significant latent variables that combined accounted for 86% of the shared covariance between cognitive and brain atrophy measures. PLS-based atrophy and behavioral patterns predicted the FTD phenotypes with a cross-validated accuracy of 89.12%, with high specificity (91.46-97.15%) and sensitivity (84.19-93.56%). When using only MRI measures and two behavioral tests in the PLS and classification algorithm, ensuring clinical feasibility, our model was similarly precise (83.62%, specificity 86.38-93.51%, sensitivity 76.17-87.50%). Here, including only atrophy or behavior patterns in the analysis led to prediction accuracies of 69.76% and 76.38%, respectively, highlighting the increased value of combining MRI and clinical measures in subtype classification. We demonstrate that the combination of brain atrophy and clinical characteristics, and multivariate statistical methods can serve as an imaging biomarker for early disease phenotyping in FTD, whereby inclusion of DBM measures adds to the classification precision in the absence of extensive clinical testing.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".