Canadian Consensus Guidelines on Use of Amyloid Imaging in Canada: Update and Future Directions from the Specialized Task Force on Amyloid imaging in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of brain amyloid beta is now clinically available in several countries including the United States and the United Kingdom, but not Canada. It has become an established technique in the field of neuroimaging of aging and dementia, with data incorporated in the new consensus guidelines for the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and predementia Alzheimer's disease-related conditions. At this point, there are three US Food and Drug Administration- and European Union-approved tracers. Guided by appropriate use criteria developed in 2013 by the Alzheimer's Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, the utility of amyloid imaging in medical practice is now supported by a growing body of research. In this paper, we aimed to provide an update on the 2012 Canadian consensus guidelines to dementia care practitioners on proper use of amyloid imaging. We also wished to generate momentum for the industry to submit a new drug proposal to Health Canada. A group of local, national, and international dementia experts and imaging specialists met to discuss scenarios in which amyloid PET could be used appropriately. Peer-reviewed and published literature between January 2004 and May 2015 was searched. Technical and regulatory considerations pertaining to Canada were considered. The results of a survey of current practices in Canadian dementia centers were considered. A set of specific clinical and research guidelines was agreed on that defines the types of patients and clinical circumstances in which amyloid PET could be used in Canada. Future research directions were also outlined, notably the importance of studies that would assess the pharmaco-economics of amyloid imaging.
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 | 0.041 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".