In vivo staging of regional amyloid deposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate a regional progression pattern of amyloid deposition from cross-sectional amyloid-sensitive PET data and evaluate its potential for in vivo staging of an individual's amyloid pathology. METHODS: F-AV45)-PET data was used to determine individual amyloid distribution profiles in a sample of 667 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort, including cognitively normal older individuals (CN) as well as patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia. The frequency of regional amyloid positivity across CN individuals was used to construct a 4-stage model of progressing amyloid pathology, and individual distribution profiles were used to evaluate the consistency of this hierarchical stage model across the full cohort. RESULTS: According to a 4-stage model, amyloid deposition begins in temporobasal and frontomedial areas, and successively affects the remaining associative neocortex, primary sensory-motor areas and the medial temporal lobe, and finally the striatum. Amyloid deposition in these brain regions showed a highly consistent hierarchical nesting across participants, where only 2% exhibited distribution profiles that deviated from the staging scheme. The earliest in vivo amyloid stages were mostly missed by conventional dichotomous classification approaches based on global florbetapir-PET signal, but were associated with significantly reduced CSF Aβ42 levels. Advanced in vivo amyloid stages were most frequent in patients with AD and correlated with cognitive impairment in individuals without dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The highly consistent regional hierarchy of PET-evidenced amyloid deposition across participants resembles neuropathologic observations and suggests a predictable regional sequence that may be used to stage an individual's progress of amyloid pathology in vivo.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".