MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117252001 · doi:10.1002/alz70857_100827

Sex and Biomarkers in FTD

2025· article· en· W7117252001 on OpenAlexaff
Sterre CM. de Boer, Chiara Fenoglio, Andrea Arighi, Lina Riedl, Ishana Rue, Ramon Landin‐Romero, Sophie Matis, Zac Chatterton, Glenda M. Halliday, Janine Diehl‐Schmid, Olivier Piguet, Inge M.W. Verberk, Charlotte E. Teunissen, Simon Ducharme, Sven J van der Lee, Yolande A.L. Pijnenburg, Daniela Galimberti

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseCognitionSex characteristicsStage (stratigraphy)Biomarker

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sex-linked differences in sporadic behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (s-bvFTD) are increasingly recognized. Research suggests that females with bvFTD exhibit greater atrophy in affected brain regions than males, despite similar clinical severity. Given that brain atrophy correlates with elevated markers of neurodegeneration, such as neurofilament light (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), we hypothesized that these biomarkers differ between sexes. METHOD: Serum NfL and GFAP levels were measured using Simoa in 357 participants (275 with s-bvFTD, 82 with primary psychiatric disorders (PPD)). Biomarker levels were compared between sexes, followed by linear regression analyses stratified by diagnostic group. In a subset of s-bvFTD participants (47 females, 105 males) with available Z-scored cognitive composite scores (including global cognition, executive function, attention and working memory), we performed linear regression using a residuals approach (with age at blood sample (AAS), education, and Z-scored NfL or GFAP as predictor) to assess cognitive reserve. RESULT: Females with s-bvFTD had significantly higher NfL and GFAP levels than males (both p <0.05), whereas no sex differences were observed in the PPD group. Within s-bvFTD, higher AAS (β=0.015, 95% CI [0.006-0.023]) and female sex (β=0.223, 95% CI [0.071-0.375]) were associated with higher logNfL. In PPD, higher AAS (β=0.030, 95% CI [0.019-0.042]) correlated with higher logNfL, but no sex effect was observed (β=-0.092, 95% CI [-0.265-0.082]). For GFAP, higher AAS (β=0.030, 95% CI [0.023-0.037]) and female sex (β=0.305, 95% CI [0.183-0.427]) were associated with higher logGFAP in s-bvFTD. In PPD, only AAS (β=0.026, 95% CI [0.012-0.040]) was significant, without a sex effect (β=0.033, 95% CI [-0.177-0.243]). Composite scores were lower in females (female=-0.24 vs. male=0.003), though not significantly (p >0.05). Residuals of linear regression did not differ by sex for both GFAP and NfL (p >0.05). However, NfL (but not GFAP) predicted a steeper cognitive decline in males (β=-0.15, p <0.05) than in females (β=-0.12, p >0.05). CONCLUSION: Females with s-bvFTD exhibited significantly higher NfL and GFAP levels. This sex difference is not explained by differences in cognitive reserve. Given that NfL plateaus as disease progresses, these findings suggest that females with s-bvFTD may present at a more advanced disease stage upon clinical presentation.

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)0.003
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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