MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402029798 · doi:10.1101/2024.08.29.24312807

Digital language markers distinguish frontal from right anterior temporal lobe atrophy in frontotemporal dementia

2024· preprint· en· W4402029798 on OpenAlexaff
Jet M. J. Vonk, Brittany Morin, Janhavi Pillai, David Rosado Rolon, Rian Bogley, David Baquirin, Zoe Ezzes, Boon Lead Tee, Jessica Deleon, Lisa Wauters, Sladjana Lukic, Maxime Montembeault, Kyan Younes, Zachary Miller, Adolfo M. García, Maria Luisa Mandelli, Virginia E. Sturm, Bruce L. Miller, Maria Luisa Gorno‐Tempini

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekZonMw
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaFrontal lobeSemantic dementiaAtrophyDementiaTemporal lobePsychologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicinePathologyEpilepsyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Within frontotemporal dementia (FTD), the behavioral variant (bvFTD) characterized by frontal atrophy, and semantic behavioral variant (sbvFTD) characterized by right anterior temporal lobe (rATL) atrophy, present diagnostic challenges due to overlapping symptoms and neuroanatomy. Accurate differentiation is crucial for clinical trial inclusion targeting TDP-43 proteinopathies. This study investigated whether automated speech analysis can distinguish between FTD-related rATL and frontal atrophy, potentially offering a non-invasive diagnostic tool. Methods: In a cross-sectional design, we included 40 participants with FTD-related predominant frontal atrophy (n=16) or predominant rATL atrophy (n=24) and 22 healthy controls from the UCSF Memory and Aging Center. Using stepwise logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, we analyzed 16 linguistic and acoustic features that were extracted automatically from audio-recorded picture description tasks. Neuroimaging data were analyzed using voxel-based morphometry to examine brain-behavior relationships of regional atrophy with the features selected in the regression models. Results: Logistic regression identified three features (content units, lexical frequency, familiarity) differentiating the overall FTD group from controls (AUC=.973), adjusted for age. Within the FTD group, five features (adpositions/total words ratio, arousal, syllable pause duration, restarts, words containing 'thing') differentiated frontal from rATL atrophy (AUC=.943). Neuroimaging analyses showed that semantic features (lexical frequency, content units, 'thing' words) were linked to bilateral inferior temporal lobe structures, speech and lexical features (syllable pause duration, adpositions/total words ratio) to bilateral inferior frontal gyri, and socio-emotional features (arousal) to areas known to mediate social cognition including the right insula and bilateral anterior temporal structures. As a composite score, this set of five features was uniquely associated with rATL atrophy. Discussion: Automated speech analysis effectively distinguished the overall FTD group from controls and differentiated between frontal and rATL atrophy. The neuroimaging findings for individual features highlight the neural basis of language impairments in these FTD variants, and when considered together, underscore the importance of utilizing features' combined power to identify impaired language patterns. Automated speech analysis could enhance early diagnosis and monitoring of FTD, offering a scalable, non-invasive alternative to traditional methods, particularly in resource-limited settings. Further research should aim to integrate automated speech analysis into multi-modal diagnostic frameworks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→