MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995602746 · doi:10.1186/s40658-019-0258-7

Spill-in counts in the quantification of 18F-florbetapir on Aβ-negative subjects: the effect of including white matter in the reference region

2019· article· en· W2995602746 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Francisco Javier López‐González, Alexis Moscoso, Nikos Efthimiou, Anxo Fernández‐Ferreiro, Manuel Piñeiro-Fiel, Stephen J. Archibald, Pablo Aguiar, Jesús Silva‐Rodríguez

Bibliographic record

VenueEJNMMI Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIINational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerBiogenBioClinicaF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaEli Lilly and CompanyU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsStandardized uptake valueWhite matterGrey matterNuclear medicineVoxelPositron emission tomographyCerebellar cortexMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingMathematicsCerebellumRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background We aim to provide a systematic study of the impact of white matter (WM) spill-in on the calculation of standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) on Aβ-negative subjects, and we study the effect of including WM in the reference region as a compensation. In addition, different partial volume correction (PVC) methods are applied and evaluated. Methods We evaluated magnetic resonance imaging and18F-AV-45 positron emission tomography data from 122 cognitively normal (CN) patients recruited at the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Cortex SUVRs were obtained by using the cerebellar grey matter (CGM) (SUVRCGM) and the whole cerebellum (SUVRWC) as reference regions. The correlations between the different SUVRs and the WM uptake (WM-SUVRCGM) were studied in patients, and in a well-controlled framework based on Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. Activity maps for the MC simulation were derived from ADNI patients by using a voxel-wise iterative process (BrainViset). Ten WM uptakes covering the spectrum of WM values obtained from patient data were simulated for different patients. Three different PVC methods were tested (a) the regional voxel-based (RBV), (b) the iterative Yang (iY), and (c) a simplified analytical correction derived from our MC simulation. Results WM-SUVRCGMfollowed a normal distribution with an average of 1.79 and a standard deviation of 0.243 (13.6%). SUVRCGMwas linearly correlated to WM-SUVRCGM(r= 0.82, linear fit slope = 0.28). SUVRWCwas linearly correlated to WM-SUVRCGM(r= 0.64, linear fit slope = 0.13). Our MC results showed that these correlations are compatible with those produced by isolated spill-in effect (slopes of 0.23 and 0.11). The impact of the spill-in was mitigated by using PVC for SUVRCGM(slopes of 0.06 and 0.07 for iY and RBV), while SUVRWCshowed a negative correlation with SUVRCGMafter PVC. The proposed analytical correction also reduced the observed correlations when applied to patient data (r= 0.27 for SUVRCGM,r= 0.18 for SUVRWC). Conclusions There is a high correlation between WM uptake and the measured SUVR due to spill-in effect, and that this effect is reduced when including WM in the reference region. We also evaluated the performance of PVC, and we proposed an analytical correction that can be applied to preprocessed data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEJNMMI PhysicsSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207