Sex differences in the clinical manifestation of autosomal dominant frontotemporal dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION Sex differences are apparent in neurodegenerative diseases, but have not been comprehensively characterized in frontotemporal dementia (FTD). METHODS Participants included 337 adults with autosomal dominant FTD enrolled in the ALLFTD Consortium. Clinical assessments and plasma were collected annually for up to six years. Linear mixed-effects models investigated how sex and disease stage associated with longitudinal trajectories of cognition, function, and neurofilament light chain (NfL). RESULTS While sex differences were not apparent at asymptomatic stages, females showed more rapid declines across all outcomes in symptomatic stages compared to males. In asymptomatic participants, the association between baseline NfL and clinical trajectories was weaker in females versus males, a difference that attenuated in symptomatic participants. DISCUSSION In genetic FTD, females show cognitive resilience in early disease stages followed by steeper clinical declines later in disease. Baseline NfL may be a less sensitive prognostic tool for clinical progression in females with FTD-causing mutations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".