PET staging of amyloidosis using striatum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) data are commonly expressed as binary measures of cortical deposition. However, not all individuals with high cortical amyloid will experience rapid cognitive decline. Motivated by postmortem data, we evaluated a three-stage PET classification: low cortical; high cortical, low striatal; and high cortical, high striatal amyloid; hypothesizing this model could better reflect Alzheimer's dementia progression than a model based only on cortical measures. METHODS: We classified PET data from 1433 participants (646 normal, 574 mild cognitive impairment, and 213 AD), explored the successive involvement of cortex and striatum using 3-year follow-up PET data, and evaluated the associations between PET stages, hippocampal volumes, and cognition. RESULTS: Follow-up data indicated that PET detects amyloid first in cortex and then in striatum. Our three-category staging including striatum better predicted hippocampal volumes and subsequent cognition than a three-category staging including only cortical amyloid. DISCUSSION: PET can evaluate amyloid expansion from cortex to subcortex. Using striatal signal as a marker of advanced amyloidosis may increase predictive power in Alzheimer's dementia research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".