Does a Positive Pittsburgh Compound B Scan in a Patient With Dementia Equal Alzheimer Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The clinical role of amyloid brain positron emission tomographic imaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease is currently being formulated. The specificity of a positive amyloid scan is a matter of contention. OBSERVATIONS: An 83-year-old Canadian man presented with a 5-year history of predominantly short-term memory loss and functional impairment. Clinical evaluation revealed significant, gradually progressive short-term memory loss in the absence of any history of strokes or other neuropsychiatric symptoms. The patient met clinical criteria for probable Alzheimer disease but had a higher than expected burden of white matter disease on magnetic resonance imaging. A positron emission tomographic Pittsburgh Compound B scan was highly positive in typical Alzheimer disease distribution. The patient died of an intracerebral hemorrhage 6 months after the assessment. Autopsy revealed cerebral amyloid angiopathy in the complete absence of amyloid plaques or neurofibrillary tangles. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This patient demonstrates that a positive Pittsburgh Compound B scan in a patient with clinical dementia meeting criteria for probable Alzheimer disease is not proof of an Alzheimer disease pathophysiological process. A positive Pittsburgh Compound B scan in typical Alzheimer disease distribution in a patient with dementia can be secondary to cerebral amyloid angiopathy alone.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".