Early diagnosis of cancer: systems approach to support clinicians in primary care

Georgia Black and colleagues argue that rather than focusing on the initial consultation efforts to reduce diagnosis times should look at the wider system

Automatic detection of pitching and throwing events in baseball with inertial measurement sensors

Purpose: Throwing loads are known to be closely related to injury risk. However, for logistic reasons, typically only pitchers have their throws counted, and then only during innings. Accordingly, all other throws made are not counted, so estimates of throws made by players may be inaccurately recorded and underreported. A potential solution to this is the use of wearable microtechnology to automatically detect, quantify, and report pitch counts in baseball. This study investigated the accuracy of detection of baseball pitching and throwing in both practice and competition using a commercially available wearable microtechnology unit. Methods: Seventeen elite youth baseball players (mean ± SD age 16.5 ± 0.8 y, height 184.1 ± 5.5 cm, mass 78.3 ± 7.7 kg) participated in this study. Participants performed pitching, fielding, and throwing during practice and competition while wearing a microtechnology unit. Sensitivity and specificity of a pitching and throwing algorithm were determined by comparing automatic measures (ie, microtechnology unit) with direct measures (ie, manually recorded pitching counts). Results: The pitching and throwing algorithm was sensitive during both practice (100%) and competition (100%). Specificity was poorer during both practice (79.8%) and competition (74.4%). Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that the microtechnology unit is sensitive to detect pitching and throwing events, but further development of the pitching algorithm is required to accurately and consistently quantify throwing loads using microtechnology

“Attending to History” in Major System Change in Healthcare in England: Specialist Cancer Surgery Service Reconfiguration

BACKGROUND: The reconfiguration of specialist hospital services, with service provision concentrated in a reduced number of sites, is one example of major system change (MSC) for which there is evidence of improved patient outcomes. This paper explores the reconfiguration of specialist oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer surgery services in a large urban area of England (Greater Manchester, GM), with a focus on the role of history in this change process and how reconfiguration was achieved after previous failed attempts. METHODS: This study draws on qualitative research from a mixed-methods evaluation of the reconfiguration of specialist cancer surgery services in GM. Forty-six interviews with relevant stakeholders were carried out, along with ~160 hours of observations at meetings and the acquisition of ~300 pertinent documents. Thematic analysis using deductive and inductive approaches was undertaken, guided by a framework of 'simple rules' for MSC. RESULTS: Through an awareness of, and attention to, history, leaders developed a change process which took into account previous unsuccessful reconfiguration attempts, enabling them to reduce the impact of potentially challenging issues. Interviewees described attending to issues involving competition between provider sites, change leadership, engagement with stakeholders, and the need for a process of change resilient to challenge. CONCLUSION: Recognition of, and response to, history, using a range of perspectives, enabled this reconfiguration. Particularly important was the way in which history influenced and informed other aspects of the change process and the influence of stakeholder power. This study provides further learning about MSC and the need for a range of perspectives to enable understanding. It shows how learning from history can be used to enable successful change

What does it take to provide clinical interventions with temporal consistency? A qualitative study of London hyperacute stroke units.

OBJECTIVES: Seven-day working in hospitals is a current priority of international health research and policy. Previous research has shown variability in delivering evidence-based clinical interventions across different times of day and week. We aimed to identify factors influencing such variations in London hyperacute stroke units (HASUs). DESIGN: Interview and observation study to explain patterns of variation in delivery and outcomes of care described in a quantitative partner paper (Melnychuk et al). SETTING: Eight HASUs in London. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed HASU staff (n=76), including doctors, nurses, therapists and administrators. We also conducted non-participant observations of delivery of care at different times of the day and week (n=45; ~102 hours). We analysed the data for thematic content relating to the ability of staff to provide evidence-based interventions consistently at different times of the day and week. RESULTS: Staff were able to deliver 'front door' interventions consistently by taking on additional responsibilities out of hours (eg, deciding eligibility for thrombolysis); creating continuities between day and night (through, eg, governance processes and staggering rotas); building trusting relationships with, eg, Radiology and Emergency Departments and staff prioritisation of 'front door' interventions. Variations by time of day resulted from reduced staffing in HASUs and elsewhere in hospitals in the evenings and at the weekend. Variations by day of week (eg, weekend effect) resulted from lack of therapy input and difficulties repatriating patients at weekends, and associated increases in pressure on Fridays and Mondays. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based service standards can facilitate 7-day working in acute stroke services. Standards should ensure that the capacity and capabilities required for 'front door' interventions are available 24/7, while other services, for example, therapies are available every day of the week. The impact of standards is influenced by interdependencies between HASUs, other hospital services and social services

Loss associated with subtractive health service change: The case of specialist cancer centralization in England

OBJECTIVE: Major system change can be stressful for staff involved and can result in 'subtractive change' - that is, when a part of the work environment is removed or ceases to exist. Little is known about the response to loss of activity resulting from such changes. Our aim was to understand perceptions of loss in response to centralization of cancer services in England, where 12 sites offering specialist surgery were reduced to four, and to understand the impact of leadership and management on enabling or hampering coping strategies associated with that loss. METHODS: We analysed 115 interviews with clinical, nursing and managerial staff from oesophago-gastric, prostate/bladder and renal cancer services in London and West Essex. In addition, we used 134 hours of observational data and analysis from over 100 documents to contextualize and to interpret the interview data. We performed a thematic analysis drawing on stress-coping theory and organizational change. RESULTS: Staff perceived that, during centralization, sites were devalued as the sites lost surgical activity, skills and experienced teams. Staff members believed that there were long-term implications for this loss, such as in retaining high-calibre staff, attracting trainees and maintaining autonomy. Emotional repercussions for staff included perceived loss of status and motivation. To mitigate these losses, leaders in the centralization process put in place some instrumental measures, such as joint contracting, surgical skill development opportunities and trainee rotation. However, these measures were undermined by patchy implementation and negative impacts on some individuals (e.g. increased workload or travel time). Relatively little emotional support was perceived to be offered. Leaders sometimes characterized adverse emotional reactions to the centralization as resistance, to be overcome through persuasion and appeals to the success of the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale reorganizations are likely to provoke a high degree of emotion and perceptions of loss. Resources to foster coping and resilience should be made available to all organizations within the system as they go through major change

How to Cost the Implementation of Major System Change for Economic Evaluations: Case Study Using Reconfigurations of Specialist Cancer Surgery in Part of London, England.

BACKGROUND: Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study. METHODS: We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed. RESULTS: Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million). CONCLUSIONS: These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable

Altered plasma protein profiles in genetic FTD – a GENFI study

© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.Background: Plasma biomarkers reflecting the pathology of frontotemporal dementia would add significant value to clinical practice, to the design and implementation of treatment trials as well as our understanding of disease mechanisms. The aim of this study was to explore the levels of multiple plasma proteins in individuals from families with genetic frontotemporal dementia. Methods: Blood samples from 693 participants in the GENetic Frontotemporal Dementia Initiative study were analysed using a multiplexed antibody array targeting 158 proteins. Results: We found 13 elevated proteins in symptomatic mutation carriers, when comparing plasma levels from people diagnosed with genetic FTD to healthy non-mutation controls and 10 proteins that were elevated compared to presymptomatic mutation carriers. Conclusion: We identified plasma proteins with altered levels in symptomatic mutation carriers compared to non-carrier controls as well as to presymptomatic mutation carriers. Further investigations are needed to elucidate their potential as fluid biomarkers of the disease process.Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. C.G. received funding from EU Joint Programme—Neurodegenerative Disease Research -Prefrontals Vetenskapsrådet Dnr 529–2014-7504, Vetenskapsrådet 2015–02926, Vetenskapsrådet 2018–02754, the Swedish FTD Inititative-Schörling Foundation, Alzheimer Foundation, Brain Foundation, Dementia Foundation and Region Stockholm ALF-project. PN received funding from KTH Center for Applied Precision Medicine (KCAP) funded by the Erling-Persson Family Foundation, the Swedish FTD Inititative-Schörling Foundation and Åhlén foundation. D.G. received support from the EU Joint Programme—Neurodegenerative Disease Research and the Italian Ministry of Health (PreFrontALS) grant 733051042. E.F. has received funding from a Canadian Institute of Health Research grant #327387. F.M. received funding from the Tau Consortium and the Center for Networked Biomedical Research on Neurodegenerative Disease. J.B.R. has received funding from the Welcome Trust (103838) and is supported by the Cambridge University Centre for Frontotemporal Dementia, the Medical Research Council (SUAG/051 G101400) and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215–20014). J.C.V.S. was supported by the Dioraphte Foundation grant 09–02-03–00, Association for Frontotemporal Dementias Research Grant 2009, Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research grant HCMI 056–13-018, ZonMw Memorabel (Deltaplan Dementie, project number 733 051 042), Alzheimer Nederland and the Bluefield Project. J.D.R. is supported by the Bluefield Project and the National Institute for Health and Care Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, and has received funding from an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and a Miriam Marks Brain Research UK Senior Fellowship. M.M. has received funding from a Canadian Institute of Health Research operating grant and the Weston Brain Institute and Ontario Brain Institute. M.O. has received funding from Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). R.S-V. is supported by Alzheimer’s Research UK Clinical Research Training Fellowship (ARUK-CRF2017B-2) and has received funding from Fundació Marató de TV3, Spain (grant no. 20143810). R.V. has received funding from the Mady Browaeys Fund for Research into Frontotemporal Dementia. This work was also supported by the EU Joint Programme—Neurodegenerative Disease Research GENFI-PROX grant [2019–02248; to J.D.R., M.O., B.B., C.G., J.C.V.S. and M.S.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Elevated CSF and plasma complement proteins in genetic frontotemporal dementia: results from the GENFI study

© The Author(s) 2022 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.Background: Neuroinflammation is emerging as an important pathological process in frontotemporal dementia (FTD), but biomarkers are lacking. We aimed to determine the value of complement proteins, which are key components of innate immunity, as biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma of presymptomatic and symptomatic genetic FTD mutation carriers. Methods: We measured the complement proteins C1q and C3b in CSF by ELISAs in 224 presymptomatic and symptomatic GRN, C9orf72 or MAPT mutation carriers and non-carriers participating in the Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia Initiative (GENFI), a multicentre cohort study. Next, we used multiplex immunoassays to measure a panel of 14 complement proteins in plasma of 431 GENFI participants. We correlated complement protein levels with corresponding clinical and neuroimaging data, neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). Results: CSF C1q and C3b, as well as plasma C2 and C3, were elevated in symptomatic mutation carriers compared to presymptomatic carriers and non-carriers. In genetic subgroup analyses, these differences remained statistically significant for C9orf72 mutation carriers. In presymptomatic carriers, several complement proteins correlated negatively with grey matter volume of FTD-related regions and positively with NfL and GFAP. In symptomatic carriers, correlations were additionally observed with disease duration and with Mini Mental State Examination and Clinical Dementia Rating scale® plus NACC Frontotemporal lobar degeneration sum of boxes scores. Conclusions: Elevated levels of CSF C1q and C3b, as well as plasma C2 and C3, demonstrate the presence of complement activation in the symptomatic stage of genetic FTD. Intriguingly, correlations with several disease measures in presymptomatic carriers suggest that complement protein levels might increase before symptom onset. Although the overlap between groups precludes their use as diagnostic markers, further research is needed to determine their potential to monitor dysregulation of the complement system in FTD.This study was supported in the Netherlands by Memorabel grants from Deltaplan Dementie (ZonMw and Alzheimer Nederland; grant numbers 733050813, 733050103, 733050513), the Bluefield Project to Cure Frontotemporal Dementia, the Dioraphte foundation (grant number 1402 1300), and the European Joint Programme—Neurodegenerative Disease Research and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (PreFrontALS: 733051042, RiMod-FTD: 733051024); in Belgium by the Mady Browaeys Fonds voor Onderzoek naar Frontotemporale Degeneratie; in the UK by the MRC UK GENFI grant (MR/M023664/1) and the JPND GENFI-PROX grant (2019-02248); JDR is supported by an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and has received funding from the NIHR Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH); ASE supported by the UK Dementia Research Institute which receives its funding from DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK; IJS is supported by the Alzheimer’s Association; JBR is supported by the Wellcome Trust (103838); in Spain by the Fundació Marató de TV3 (20143810 to RSV); in Germany by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (EXC 2145 SyNergy—ID 390857198) and by grant 779357 “Solve-RD” from the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (to MS); in Sweden by grants from the Swedish FTD Initiative funded by the Schörling Foundation, grants from JPND PreFrontALS Swedish Research Council (VR) 529–2014-7504, Swedish Research Council (VR) 2015–02926, Swedish Research Council (VR) 2018–02754, Swedish Brain Foundation, Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, Stockholm County Council ALF, Swedish Demensfonden, Stohnes foundation, Gamla Tjänarinnor, Karolinska Institutet Doctoral Funding, and StratNeuro. HZ is a Wallenberg Scholar.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A data-driven disease progression model of fluid biomarkers in genetic frontotemporal dementia

© The Author(s) (2021). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] CSF and blood biomarkers for genetic frontotemporal dementia have been proposed, including those reflecting neuroaxonal loss (neurofilament light chain and phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain), synapse dysfunction [neuronal pentraxin 2 (NPTX2)], astrogliosis (glial fibrillary acidic protein) and complement activation (C1q, C3b). Determining the sequence in which biomarkers become abnormal over the course of disease could facilitate disease staging and help identify mutation carriers with prodromal or early-stage frontotemporal dementia, which is especially important as pharmaceutical trials emerge. We aimed to model the sequence of biomarker abnormalities in presymptomatic and symptomatic genetic frontotemporal dementia using cross-sectional data from the Genetic Frontotemporal dementia Initiative (GENFI), a longitudinal cohort study. Two-hundred and seventy-five presymptomatic and 127 symptomatic carriers of mutations in GRN, C9orf72 or MAPT, as well as 247 non-carriers, were selected from the GENFI cohort based on availability of one or more of the aforementioned biomarkers. Nine presymptomatic carriers developed symptoms within 18 months of sample collection ('converters'). Sequences of biomarker abnormalities were modelled for the entire group using discriminative event-based modelling (DEBM) and for each genetic subgroup using co-initialized DEBM. These models estimate probabilistic biomarker abnormalities in a data-driven way and do not rely on previous diagnostic information or biomarker cut-off points. Using cross-validation, subjects were subsequently assigned a disease stage based on their position along the disease progression timeline. CSF NPTX2 was the first biomarker to become abnormal, followed by blood and CSF neurofilament light chain, blood phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain, blood glial fibrillary acidic protein and finally CSF C3b and C1q. Biomarker orderings did not differ significantly between genetic subgroups, but more uncertainty was noted in the C9orf72 and MAPT groups than for GRN. Estimated disease stages could distinguish symptomatic from presymptomatic carriers and non-carriers with areas under the curve of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.80-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94) respectively. The areas under the curve to distinguish converters from non-converting presymptomatic carriers was 0.85 (0.75-0.95). Our data-driven model of genetic frontotemporal dementia revealed that NPTX2 and neurofilament light chain are the earliest to change among the selected biomarkers. Further research should investigate their utility as candidate selection tools for pharmaceutical trials. The model's ability to accurately estimate individual disease stages could improve patient stratification and track the efficacy of therapeutic interventions.This study was supported in the Netherlands by two Memorabel grants from Deltaplan Dementie (The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Alzheimer Nederland; grant numbers 733050813,733050103 and 733050513), the Bluefield Project to Cure Frontotemporal Dementia, the Dioraphte foundation (grant number 1402 1300), the European Joint Programme—Neurodegenerative Disease Research and the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (PreFrontALS: 733051042, RiMod-FTD: 733051024); V.V. and S.K. have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 666992 (EuroPOND). E.B. was supported by the Hartstichting (PPP Allowance, 2018B011); in Belgium by the Mady Browaeys Fonds voor Onderzoek naar Frontotemporale Degeneratie; in the UK by the MRC UK GENFI grant (MR/M023664/1); J.D.R. is supported by an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and has received funding from the NIHR Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH); I.J.S. is supported by the Alzheimer’s Association; J.B.R. is supported by the Wellcome Trust (103838); in Spain by the Fundació Marató de TV3 (20143810 to R.S.V.); in Germany by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (EXC 2145 SyNergy—ID 390857198) and by grant 779357 ‘Solve-RD’ from the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (to MS); in Sweden by grants from the Swedish FTD Initiative funded by the Schörling Foundation, grants from JPND PreFrontALS Swedish Research Council (VR) 529–2014-7504, Swedish Research Council (VR) 2015–02926, Swedish Research Council (VR) 2018–02754, Swedish Brain Foundation, Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, Stockholm County Council ALF, Swedish Demensfonden, Stohnes foundation, Gamla Tjänarinnor, Karolinska Institutet Doctoral Funding and StratNeuro. H.Z. is a Wallenberg Scholar.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Impairment of episodic memory in genetic frontotemporal dementia : a GENFI study

© 2021 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.Introduction: We aimed to assess episodic memory in genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT). Methods: The FCSRT was administered in 417 presymptomatic and symptomatic mutation carriers (181 chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 [C9orf72], 163 progranulin [GRN], and 73 microtubule-associated protein tau [MAPT]) and 290 controls. Group differences and correlations with other neuropsychological tests were examined. We performed voxel-based morphometry to investigate the underlying neural substrates of the FCSRT. Results: All symptomatic mutation carrier groups and presymptomatic MAPT mutation carriers performed significantly worse on all FCSRT scores compared to controls. In the presymptomatic C9orf72 group, deficits were found on all scores except for the delayed total recall task, while no deficits were found in presymptomatic GRN mutation carriers. Performance on the FCSRT correlated with executive function, particularly in C9orf72 mutation carriers, but also with memory and naming tasks in the MAPT group. FCSRT performance also correlated with gray matter volumes of frontal, temporal, and subcortical regions in C9orf72 and GRN, but mainly temporal areas in MAPT mutation carriers. Discussion: The FCSRT detects presymptomatic deficits in C9orf72- and MAPT-associated FTD and provides important insight into the underlying cause of memory impairment in different forms of FTD.The Dementia Research Centre is supported by Alzheimer's Research UK, Alzheimer's Society, Brain Research UK, and The Wolfson Foundation. This work was supported by the NIHR UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre (LWENC) Clinical Research Facility, and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer's Society, and Alzheimer's Research UK. J. D. Rohrer is supported by an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and has received funding from the NIHR Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH). This work was also supported by the MRC UK GENFI grant (MR/M023664/1); the Bluefield Project; the JPND GENFI-PROX grant (2019-02248); the Dioraphte Foundation (grant numbers 09-02-00); the Association for Frontotemporal Dementias Research Grant 2009; The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO; grant HCMI 056-13-018); ZonMw Memorabel (Deltaplan Dementie, project numbers 733 050 103 and 733 050 813); JPND PreFrontAls consortium (project number 733051042). J. M. Poos is supported by a Fellowship award from Alzheimer Nederland (WE.15-2019.02). This work was conducted using the MRC Dementias Platform UK (MR/L023784/1 and MR/009076/1). Several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases - Project ID No 739510.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio