Clinical Recognition of Frontotemporal Dementia with Right Temporal Predominance; Consensus Recommendations of the International Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with right anterior temporal lobe (RATL) predominance remains challenging due to lack of clinical characterization, and standardized terminology. The recent research of the International Working Group (IWG) identified common symptoms but also unveiled broad terminologies lacking precision and operationalization, with risk of misdiagnoses, inappropriate referrals and poor clinical management. Based on the published evidence (91267 articles screened) and expert opinion (105 FTD specialists across 52 centers), the IWG delineates three primary domains of impairment causing behavioral, memory and language problems: (i) multimodal knowledge of non-verbal information including people, living beings, landmarks, flavors/odors, sounds, bodily sensations, emotions and social cues; (ii) socioemotional behavior encompassing emotion expression, social response and motivation; and (iii) prioritization for focus on specific interests, hedonic valuation and personal preferences. This study establishes a consensus on clinical profile, phenotypic nomenclature, and future directions to enhance diagnostic precision and therapeutic interventions.
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 | 0.079 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".