Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the literature related to cognitive reserve (CR) in individuals with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is only emerging, a clear consensus on the relationship among CR proxies, brain status, and clinical performance has not been reached. The primary aim of this systematic review was to examine the relationship among sociobehavioral proxies of CR, brain status, and clinical performance in individuals with various types of FTD. Additionally, characteristics of patient population, sociobehavioral proxies, disease severity tools, and brain status measures used were identified. The systematic review was conducted using comprehensive search terms in Medline, PsychINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria were for studies to include at least one CR and one brain status measure for individuals with FTD, be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and be published in English. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess study quality and bias risk. A total of 237 titles and abstracts were screened, with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Together, these studies report 1,423 participants with FTD. Based on the included studies, partial support was demonstrated for CR in individuals with FTD when education, occupation, and leisure were utilized as CR proxies. The variability in results among studies could be related to the different tools used to measure CR, brain status, and disease severity. This review provides recommendations for future studies: incorporating longitudinal designs, in depth neuropsychological testing, consistent disease duration measure, and transparant statistical output reporting.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".