Improved Diagnostic Accuracy of SPECT Through Statistical Analysis and the Detection of Hot Spots at the Primary Sensorimotor Area for the Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease in a Community-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: SPECT is an important diagnostic tool for dementia. Recently, statistical analysis of SPECT has been commonly used for dementia research. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of visual SPECT evaluation and/or statistical analysis for the diagnosis (Dx) of Alzheimer disease (AD) and other forms of dementia in our community-based study "The Osaki-Tajiri Project." PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine consecutive outpatients with dementia were enrolled and underwent brain perfusion SPECT with 99mTc-ECD. Diagnostic accuracy of SPECT was tested using 3 methods: visual inspection (SPECT Dx), automated diagnostic tool using statistical analysis with easy Z-score imaging system (eZIS Dx), and visual inspection plus eZIS (integrated Dx). RESULTS: Integrated Dx showed the highest sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, whereas eZIS was the second most accurate method. We also observed that a higher than expected rate of SPECT images indicated false-negative cases of AD. Among these, 50% showed hypofrontality and were diagnosed as frontotemporal lobar degeneration. These cases typically showed regional "hot spots" in the primary sensorimotor cortex (ie, a sensorimotor hot spot sign), which we determined were associated with AD rather than frontotemporal lobar degeneration. CONCLUSION: We concluded that the diagnostic abilities were improved by the integrated use of visual assessment and statistical analysis. In addition, the detection of a sensorimotor hot spot sign was useful to detect AD when hypofrontality is present and improved the ability to properly diagnose AD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".