MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406024313 · doi:10.1002/alz.087999

Differentiating Sporadic behavioural variant Frontotemporal Dementia from late‐onset Primary Psychiatric Disorders: the DIPPA‐FTD study

2024· article· en· W4406024313 on OpenAlexaff
Sterre C.M. de Boer, Chiara Fenoglio, Giorgio Fumagalli, Lina Riedl, Sophie Matis, Zac Chatterton, Ishana Rue, Ramón Landín-Romero, Sven J. van der Lee, Patrick Sommer, Timo Grimmer, Janine Diehl‐Schmid, Charlotte E. Teunissen, Daniela Galimberti, Glenda M. Halliday, Simon Ducharme, Olivier Piguet, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontotemporal dementiaMedicineAge of onsetLogistic regressionInternal medicineCohortReceiver operating characteristicStepwise regressionPsychiatryAtrophyRetrospective cohort studyDementiaClinical psychologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sporadic bvFTD is often misdiagnosed as a primary psychiatric disorder (PPD) due to overlapping clinical features and lack of reliable biomarkers. The multi-centre study DIPPA-FTD aims to develop diagnostic- and prognostic-algorithms that can distinguish sporadic bvFTD from late-onset PPD. The aim of the retrospective DIPPA-FTD study was to identify the strongest clinical discriminators. METHOD: DIPPA-FTD has compiled a retrospective database with 508 sporadic bvFTD and 152 late-onset PPD cases from five cohorts, making it the largest sporadic FTD cohort to date. Logistic regression models and ROC curve analysis were applied to determine discriminative value per clinical marker in separate subsets; (i) neuropsychological features, (ii) visual brain atrophy rating scales and (iii) serum NfL+GFAP. A global (backward stepwise) logistic regression was also conducted in the most optimal subset that had all markers per modality available. All models were adjusted for age, sex and education when indicated. RESULT: For marker (i) (bvFTD n = 217, PPD n = 75) higher scores of letter fluency (OR:1.47, p<0.001), global cognitive screening (OR:1.72, p = 0.01) and lower attention scores (OR:0.77, p = 0.05) were significantly associated with increased likelihood of PPD and reached an AUC of 0.77. Marker (ii) visual atrophy rating composite score (bvFTD n = 211, PPD n = 112) reached diagnostic accuracy of 79% and fronto-insula was the most useful discriminator (AUC 0.80). Analysis of marker (iii) NfL+GFAP (bvFTD n = 275, PPD n = 82) showed that NfL and GFAP levels were significantly higher in bvFTD. Combination of NfL+GFAP yielded highest AUC value (0.88). The combined dataset with all markers variables available (bvFTD n = 120, PPD n = 40) reached an AUC of 0.89. Higher NfL (OR:1.09, p<0.01), more atrophy in fronto-insula (OR:2.38, p = 0.02) and enlarged mean ventricular space (OR:3.84, p = 0.05) were significant predictors for sporadic bvFTD. CONCLUSION: Global cognition, letter fluency and attention scores, fronto-insula brain atrophy and NfL+GFAP have a significant role in discriminating sporadic bvFTD from PPD. Combination of markers can increase diagnostic accuracy in clinical setting. Promising markers identified in this retrospective study will be validated in the prospective DIPPA-FTD study and integrated in a data-driven approach to develop diagnostic and prognostic tools, enabling early-stage diagnosis sporadic bvFTD which is required for trial enrolment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→