MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117304950 · doi:10.1002/alz70858_107543

Genetic testing rates of individuals diagnosed with FTD and close biological relatives assessed in the FTD Insights Survey

2025· article· en· W7117304950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Devon Chenette, Stella McCaughey, Robert Reinecker, Carrie Milliard, T.W. Chow, Penny A. Dacks

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic testingQuarter (Canadian coin)Genetic counselingPredictive testingTest (biology)Risk assessmentGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a heterogenous disorder characterized by early age of onset and changes in behavior or language. It is estimated that approximately 20% of patients have an autosomal dominant presentation. Mutations in the GRN, MAPT, or C9orf72 genes account for the majority of genetic FTD. METHOD: The FTD Insights Survey was developed and executed by the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration (AFTD) and the FTD Disorders Registry. This dataset contains 1,800 responses (US, UK, Canada) and is available to researchers. Responses to "Have you been tested to see if you carry a specific gene for FTD" were analyzed. Data was assessed for 1) FTD patients who selected "I am diagnosed with FTD" and 2) relatives who selected "I have a close biological relative with FTD" and didn't select "I am diagnosed with FTD". RESULT: Twenty-three percent (23.3%, n = 51) of 219 patients received genetic testing. Individuals diagnosed with FTD with ALS (n = 9) reported the highest rates of genetic testing (88.9%, n = 8). A greater percentage of patients who completed genetic testing reported having at least one biological relative diagnosed with FTD compared to those who did not receive genetic testing (44.2% vs.12% respectively). Twelve percent (12.4%, n = 61) of 492 biological relatives received genetic testing. Relatives of individuals diagnosed with FTD with ALS (n = 39) reported the highest rates of genetic testing (25.6%, n = 10). Of relatives who responded yes (n = 95) to the question, "Does your family carry a gene for FTD", 49.5% (n = 47) received genetic testing. CONCLUSION: Less than a quarter of FTD patients received genetic testing despite genetic forms comprising a notable percentage of all FTD cases. Highest rates were reported for individuals diagnosed with FTD with ALS, and rates were higher with known family history. Low rates of genetic testing may exacerbate challenges facing families impacted by FTD such as assessing familial risk of developing FTD and determining eligibility for investigational drugs in development for genetic forms of FTD. Additional research is needed to better understand the accessibility of genetic testing and counseling. Taken together, these findings highlight the need to further raise awareness of genetic FTD with healthcare providers, patients, and biological relatives.

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)0.006
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research→French-language works237,207→