MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981297020 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.119.230797

Predictive Value of <sup>18</sup>F-Florbetapir and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET for Conversion from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer Dementia

2019· article· en· W2981297020 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ganna Blazhenets, Yilong Ma, A Sörensen, Florian Schiller, Gerta Rücker, David Eidelberg, Lars Frings, Philipp T. Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsStandardized uptake valueNuclear medicineDementiaPositron emission tomographyCognitive impairmentPredictive valueMedicineInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study examined the predictive values of amyloid PET, <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET, and nonimaging predictors (alone and in combination) for development of Alzheimer dementia (AD) in a large population of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). <b>Methods:</b> The study included 319 patients with MCI from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. In a derivation dataset (<i>n</i> = 159), the following Cox proportional-hazards models were constructed, each adjusted for age and sex: amyloid PET using <sup>18</sup>F-florbetapir (pattern expression score of an amyloid-β AD conversion–related pattern, constructed by principle-components analysis); <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET (pattern expression score of a previously defined <sup>18</sup>F-FDG–based AD conversion–related pattern, constructed by principle-components analysis); nonimaging (functional activities questionnaire, apolipoprotein E, and mini-mental state examination score); <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET + amyloid PET; amyloid PET + nonimaging; <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET + nonimaging; and amyloid PET + <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET + nonimaging. In a second step, the results of Cox regressions were applied to a validation dataset (<i>n</i> = 160) to stratify subjects according to the predicted conversion risk. <b>Results:</b> On the basis of the independent validation dataset, the <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET model yielded a significantly higher predictive value than the amyloid PET model. However, both were inferior to the nonimaging model and were significantly improved by the addition of nonimaging variables. The best prediction accuracy was reached by combining <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET, amyloid PET, and nonimaging variables. The combined model yielded 5-y free-of-conversion rates of 100%, 64%, and 24% for the low-, medium- and high-risk groups, respectively. <b>Conclusion:</b><sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET, amyloid PET, and nonimaging variables represent complementary predictors of conversion from MCI to AD. Especially in combination, they enable an accurate stratification of patients according to their conversion risks, which is of great interest for patient care and 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

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

Citations58
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207