MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403805809 · doi:10.1080/13554794.2024.2419177

Clinical considerations regarding suspected “BvFTD-by-proxy”: a case series

2024· article· en· W4403805809 on OpenAlexaff
Erin R. Weinhold, Christina Vaughan, Mary Clare O’Hara, Elizabeth M. Bloemen, Delia Bakemen, Simon Ducharme, Peter Pressman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocase · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsProxy (statistics)Series (stratigraphy)PsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceGeologyMachine learningPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A diagnosis of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) often relies on informant reports of significant behavioral changes. "BvFTD-by-proxy" describes situations of neuropsychiatric changes reported solely by an informant under circumstances that may raise questions regarding their objectivity. We present three cases of bvFTD-like symptoms reported by spouses, where progression was unclear, testing showed mild but stable executive dysfunction, and neuroimaging was unremarkable. The subjective nature of bvFTD criteria leaves patients vulnerable to misleading informant reports, especially amid relational discord, and may threaten patient autonomy. Recognizing and managing this situation is critical but time-consuming, often requiring coordinated care across multiple providers.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurocaseSame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207