FDG-PET as an independent biomarker for Alzheimer’s biological diagnosis: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) brain metabolism was recognized as a biomarker of neurodegeneration in the recently proposed ATN framework for Alzheimer's disease (AD) biological definition. However, accumulating evidence suggested it is an independent biomarker, which is denoted as "F" in the very study. METHODS: A total of 551 A+T+ individuals from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database were recruited and then further divided into four groups based on the biomarker positivity as 132 A+T+N-F-, 102 A+T+N-F+, 113 A+T+N+F-, and 204 A+T+N+F+. Frequency distributions of the groups were compared, as well as the clinical progression [measured by the longitudinal changes in cognition and brain structure, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD dementia conversion] between every pair of F+ and F- groups. RESULTS: The prevalence of A+T+N+F+ profile was 66.24% in clinically diagnosed AD dementia patients; similarly, the majority of individuals with reduced FDG-PET were AD dementia subjects. Among the 551 individuals that included, 537 had at least one follow-up (varied from 1 to 8 years). Individuals in F+ groups performed worse and dropped faster in Mini-Mental State Examination scale and had faster shrinking middle temporal lobe than those in F- groups (all p < 0.05). Moreover, in MCI patients, reduced FDG-PET exerted 2.47 to 4.08-fold risk of AD dementia progression compared with those without significantly impaired FDG-PET (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the analyses, separating FDG-PET from "N" biomarker to build the ATN(F) system is necessary and well-founded. The analysis from this study could be a complement to the original ATN framework for AD's biological definition.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".