MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174753847 · doi:10.1093/brain/awv112

Existing Pittsburgh Compound-B positron emission tomography thresholds are too high: statistical and pathological evaluation

2015· article· en· W2174753847 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sylvia Villeneuve, Gil D. Rabinovici, Brendan I. Cohn‐Sheehy, Cindee Madison, Nagehan Ayakta, Pia Ghosh, Renaud La Joie, Samia Kate Arthur-Bentil, Jacob W. Vogel, Shawn Marks, Manja Lehmann, Howard J. Rosen, Bruce Reed, John Olichney, Adam L. Boxer, Bruce L. Miller, Ewa Borys, Lee‐Way Jin, Eric J. Huang, Lea T. Grinberg, Charles DeCarli, William W. Seeley, William J. Jagust

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on AgingTau ConsortiumCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHellman Family Foundation
KeywordsPittsburgh compound BPositron emission tomographyAmyloid (mycology)Nuclear medicinePositron emissionDementiaAlzheimer's diseaseBrain positron emission tomographyNeuroimagingPsychologyMedicinePathologyPreclinical imagingNeuroscienceIn vivoDiseaseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amyloid-β, a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease, begins accumulating up to two decades before the onset of dementia, and can be detected in vivo applying amyloid-β positron emission tomography tracers such as carbon-11-labelled Pittsburgh compound-B. A variety of thresholds have been applied in the literature to define Pittsburgh compound-B positron emission tomography positivity, but the ability of these thresholds to detect early amyloid-β deposition is unknown, and validation studies comparing Pittsburgh compound-B thresholds to post-mortem amyloid burden are lacking. In this study we first derived thresholds for amyloid positron emission tomography positivity using Pittsburgh compound-B positron emission tomography in 154 cognitively normal older adults with four complementary approaches: (i) reference values from a young control group aged between 20 and 30 years; (ii) a Gaussian mixture model that assigned each subject a probability of being amyloid-β-positive or amyloid-β-negative based on Pittsburgh compound-B index uptake; (iii) a k-means cluster approach that clustered subjects into amyloid-β-positive or amyloid-β-negative based on Pittsburgh compound-B uptake in different brain regions (features); and (iv) an iterative voxel-based analysis that further explored the spatial pattern of early amyloid-β positron emission tomography signal. Next, we tested the sensitivity and specificity of the derived thresholds in 50 individuals who underwent Pittsburgh compound-B positron emission tomography during life and brain autopsy (mean time positron emission tomography to autopsy 3.1 ± 1.8 years). Amyloid at autopsy was classified using Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) criteria, unadjusted for age. The analytic approaches yielded low thresholds (standard uptake value ratiolow = 1.21, distribution volume ratiolow = 1.08) that represent the earliest detectable Pittsburgh compound-B signal, as well as high thresholds (standard uptake value ratiohigh = 1.40, distribution volume ratiohigh = 1.20) that are more conservative in defining Pittsburgh compound-B positron emission tomography positivity. In voxel-wise contrasts, elevated Pittsburgh compound-B retention was first noted in the medial frontal cortex, then the precuneus, lateral frontal and parietal lobes, and finally the lateral temporal lobe. When compared to post-mortem amyloid burden, low proposed thresholds were more sensitive than high thresholds (sensitivities: distribution volume ratiolow 81.0%, standard uptake value ratiolow 83.3%; distribution volume ratiohigh 61.9%, standard uptake value ratiohigh 62.5%) for CERAD moderate-to-frequent neuritic plaques, with similar specificity (distribution volume ratiolow 95.8%; standard uptake value ratiolow, distribution volume ratiohigh and standard uptake value ratiohigh 100.0%). A receiver operator characteristic analysis identified optimal distribution volume ratio (1.06) and standard uptake value ratio (1.20) thresholds that were nearly identical to the a priori distribution volume ratiolow and standard uptake value ratiolow. In summary, we found that frequently applied thresholds for Pittsburgh compound-B positivity (typically at or above distribution volume ratiohigh and standard uptake value ratiohigh) are overly stringent in defining amyloid positivity. Lower thresholds in this study resulted in higher sensitivity while not compromising specificity.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations433
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207