Cognitive Reserve in Individuals with Frontotemporal Dementia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In comparison to robust evidence for cognitive reserve (CR) in individuals with Alzheimer's-related dementia, the literature on CR in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is still emerging. A clear consensus on the relationship among CR, brain status, and clinical performance has not been reached. The aims of this systematic review were to: 1) document the FTD disorders represented in this literature and their diagnosis descriptions, 2) classify the sociobehavioral proxies of CR used, 3) identify the tools used to measure disease severity, clinical performance, and brain status, and 4) examine the relationship between CR and brain status in individuals with FTD. METHOD: Systematic review of the literature was conducted using a comprehensive range of relevant search terms in Medline, PsychINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria were for studies to: include at least one proxy of 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 the quality of the included studies and risk of bias based on three domains: participant selection, comparability of included groups, and quality of outcome measures. RESULT: A total of 220 titles and abstracts were screened, with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Together, these studies report 1,423 participants diagnosed with FTD. Across studies, three proxies of CR were incorporated as either continuous or categorical variables: education, occupation, and leisure. Seven tools were used to measure disease severity and three neuroimaging tools were used to measure brain status. All included studies reported significant associations between a CR proxy and a brain measure. However, only partial support was demonstrated for the CR theory in individuals with FTD when education, occupation, and leisure involvement were analyzed in relation to disease severity. CONCLUSION: The variable results among studies could be related to the different tools used to measure CR, the numerous brain status measures incoporated, and the different ways researchers determine disease severity. Recommendations for future studies include incorporating longitudinal designs, using in-depth neuropsychological testing, improving measurement of disease duration, and transparant reporting of statistical output.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".