Contributions of imprecision in<scp>PET</scp>‐<scp>MRI</scp>rigid registration to imprecision in amyloid<scp>PET</scp><scp>SUVR</scp>measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative measurement of β-amyloid from amyloid PET scans typically relies on localizing target and reference regions by image registration to MRI. In this work, we present a series of simulations where 50 small random perturbations of starting location and orientation were applied to each subject's PET scan, and rigid registration using spm_coreg was performed between each perturbed PET scan and its corresponding MRI. We then measured variation in the output PET-MRI registrations and how this variation affected the resulting SUVR measurements. We performed these experiments using scans of 1196 participants, half using 18F florbetapir and half using 11C PiB. From these experiments, we measured the magnitude of the imprecision in the rigid registration steps used to localize measurement regions, and how this contributes to the overall imprecision in SUVR measurements. Unexpectedly, we found for both tracers that the imprecision in these measurements depends on the degree of amyloid tracer uptake, and thus also indirectly on Alzheimer's disease clinical status. We then examined common choices of reference regions, and we show that SUVR measurements using supratentorial white matter references are relatively resistant to this source of error. We also show that the use of partial volume correction further magnifies the effects of registration imprecision on SUVR measurements. Together, these results suggest that this rigid registration step is an attractive target for future work in improving measurement techniques. Hum Brain Mapp 38:3323-3336, 2017. © 2017 The Authors Human Brain Mapping Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".