The Value of PET in Mild Cognitive Impairment, Typical and Atypical/Unclear Dementias: A Retrospective Memory Clinic Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective study examined the role of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the diagnosis of atypical/unclear dementias in a memory clinic setting. A total of 94 patients with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, who had a PET study within 2 months of their diagnosis, were reevaluated at 5 and 18 months. Results showed that PET was associated with a change in diagnosis in 29% of patients and a 64% increase in the use of cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs). PET significantly lowered the number of atypical/unclear diagnoses from 39.4% to 16% and nearly 30% of these were found to have a typical Alzheimer's disease (AD) pattern of hypometabolism. In conclusion, the addition of PET to the investigation of atypical/unclear cases of dementia helped generating a more accurate diagnosis and initiating earlier treatment. PET was of limited contribution to typical AD and frontotemporal dementia (FTD) cases. This study provides guiding evidence about the true value of PET imaging in the day-to-day challenge of dementia diagnosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".