The Use of Random Forests to Identify Brain Regions on Amyloid and FDG PET Associated With MoCA Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate random forests (RFs) to identify ROIs on F-florbetapir and F-FDG PET associated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven subjects with significant white matter disease presenting with either transient ischemic attack/lacunar stroke or mild cognitive impairment from early Alzheimer disease, enrolled in a multicenter prospective observational trial, had MoCA and F-florbetapir PET; 55 had F-FDG PET. Scans were processed using the MINC toolkit to generate SUV ratios, normalized to cerebellar gray matter (F-florbetapir PET), or pons (F-FDG PET). SUV ratio data and MoCA score were used for supervised training of RFs programmed in MATLAB. RESULTS: F-Florbetapir PETs were randomly divided into 40 training and 17 testing scans; 100 RFs of 1000 trees, constructed from a random subset of 16 training scans and 20 ROIs, identified ROIs associated with MoCA score: right posterior cingulate gyrus, right anterior cingulate gyrus, left precuneus, left posterior cingulate gyrus, and right precuneus. Amyloid increased with decreasing MoCA score. F-FDG PETs were randomly divided into 40 training and 15 testing scans; 100 RFs of 1000 trees, each tree constructed from a random subset of 16 training scans and 20 ROIs, identified ROIs associated with MoCA score: left fusiform gyrus, left precuneus, left posterior cingulate gyrus, right precuneus, and left middle orbitofrontal gyrus. F-FDG decreased with decreasing MoCA score. CONCLUSIONS: Random forests help pinpoint clinically relevant ROIs associated with MoCA score; amyloid increased and F-FDG decreased with decreasing MoCA score, most significantly in the posterior cingulate gyrus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".