MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2537098670 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.035

IC‐P‐025: [<sup>18</sup>F]Florbetapir Roc Curve at Every Voxel Revels a Wide Range of Cortical Suvr Cut‐Offs

2016· article· en· W2537098670 on OpenAlexaff
Tharick A. Pascoal, Sulantha Mathotaarachchi, Monica Shin, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Min Su Kang, Seqian Wang, Sara Mohades, Thomas Beaudry, Jean‐Paul Soucy, Serge Gauthier, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill Genome CentreMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas CollegeMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelReceiver operating characteristicStatistical parametric mappingNuclear medicineGrey matterCut-pointPopulationStandardized uptake valueArea under the curveMedicineWhite matterPsychologyPositron emission tomographyMathematicsInternal medicineStatisticsRadiologyMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last decades researchers have been using global measurements of amyloid−PET ligands to dichotomize subjects into amyloid-β (Aβ) positive or negative groups. The Aβ dichotomization is desirable to enrich clinical trials population and to assess the influences of Aβ abnormalities on Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression. However, dichotomizations using global measurements do not provide information regarding the regional pattern of Aβ abnormalities, which may be important to identifying nondemented individuals fated to AD clinical progression. Here, we tested the framework that cut-off analysis performed at every voxel may provide additional information as compared to global estimates. We assessed cognitively normal (n=209), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n=311) and AD (n=81) individuals from ADNI cohort who underwent [18F]Florbetapir PET at baseline (Table 1). The standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) maps were then generated using the cerebellum grey matter and the global white matter as reference regions. First, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was performed at every voxel contrasting controls and AD participants. Second, the optimal cut-off value at every voxel was calculated using the least distance from (0,1) point to the ROC curve (best operating point) (Figure 1). Third, parametric maps of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were generated (Figure 2). Finally, probabilistic maps for baseline Aβ positivity at every voxel were generated for MCI converters (n= 55) and non-converters (n= 256) over 2 years (Figure 3). [18F]Florbetapir SUVR cut-off values at every voxel. [18F]Florbetapir SUVR cut-off values sensitivity and specificity for a diagnostic of probable Alzheimer's disease at every voxel. Probabilistic maps of [18F]Florbetapir SUVR positivity at every voxel for MCI Non-converters and converters. The highest SUVR cut-off values were found in the precuneus, anterior and posterior cingulate cortices, whereas the lowest were found in clusters in the temporal lobe (Figure 1). Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were the highest in clusters in the precuneus, posterior cingulate, temporal, and frontal cortices (Figure 2). Probabilistic maps showed that MCI non-converters did not present a specific pattern of amyloid deposition at baseline, whereas MCI converters reached 100% of positivity in voxels in the posterior cingulate, precuneus, frontal and temporal cortices (Figure 3). Our results revealed that the analysis of amyloid-PET cut-offs at every voxel might provide important information regarding the patterns of regional Aβ abnormalities associated with the clinical progression to 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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→