MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945458022 · doi:10.1002/acn3.782

Predicting long‐term clinical stability in amyloid‐positive subjects by <scp>FDG</scp>‐<scp>PET</scp>

2019· article· en· W2945458022 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Leonardo Iaccarino, Arianna Sala, Daniela Perani

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Clinical and Translational Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFP7 HealthGenentechIXICONational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationMinistero della SaluteNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMeso Scale DiagnosticsServier
KeywordsNeuropathologyMedicineNeurodegenerationBiomarkerClinical trialInternal medicinePet imagingDiseaseOncologyAmyloid (mycology)Alzheimer's diseasePositron emission tomographyPathologyNuclear medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Imaging biomarkers can be used to screen participants for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials. To test the predictive values in clinical progression of neuropathology change (amyloid‐ PET ) or brain metabolism as neurodegeneration biomarker ([18F]F DG ‐ PET ), we evaluated data from N = 268 healthy controls and N = 519 mild cognitive impairment subjects. Despite being a significant risk factor, amyloid positivity was not associated with clinical progression in the majority (≥60%) of subjects. Notably, a negative [18F]F DG ‐ PET scan at baseline strongly predicted clinical stability with high negative predictive values (&gt;0.80) for both groups. We suggest [18F]F DG ‐ PET brain metabolism or other neurodegeneration measures should be coupled to amyloid‐ PET to exclude clinically stable individuals from clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations64
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Clinical and Translational NeurologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207