Determining Amyloid-β Positivity Using<sup>18</sup>F-AZD4694 PET Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amyloid-β deposition into plaques is a pathologic hallmark of Alzheimer disease appearing years before the onset of symptoms. Although cerebral amyloid-β deposition occurs on a continuum, dichotomization into positive and negative groups has advantages for diagnosis, clinical management, and population enrichment for clinical trials. <sup>18</sup>F-AZD4694 (also known as <sup>18</sup>F-NAV4694) is an amyloid-β imaging ligand with high affinity for amyloid-β plaques. Despite being used in multiple academic centers, no studies have assessed a quantitative cutoff for amyloid-β positivity using <sup>18</sup>F-AZD4694 PET. <b>Methods:</b> We assessed 176 individuals [young adults (<i>n</i> = 22), cognitively unimpaired elderly (<i>n</i> = 89), and cognitively impaired (<i>n</i> = 65)] who underwent amyloid-β PET with <sup>18</sup>F-AZD4694, lumbar puncture, structural MRI, and genotyping for <i>APOEε4</i>. <sup>18</sup>F-AZD4694 values were normalized using the cerebellar gray matter as a reference region. We compared 5 methods for deriving a quantitative threshold for <sup>18</sup>F-AZD4694 PET positivity: comparison with young-control SUV ratios (SUVRs), receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves based on clinical classification of cognitively unimpaired elderly versus Alzheimer disease dementia, ROC curves based on visual Aβ-positive/Aβ-negative classification, gaussian mixture modeling, and comparison with cerebrospinal fluid measures of amyloid-β, specifically the Aβ<sub>42</sub>/Aβ<sub>40</sub> ratio. <b>Results:</b> We observed good convergence among the 4 methods: ROC curves based on visual classification (optimal cut point, 1.55 SUVR), ROC curves based on clinical classification (optimal cut point, 1.56 SUVR) gaussian mixture modeling (optimal cut point, 1.55 SUVR), and comparison with cerebrospinal fluid measures of amyloid-β (optimal cut point, 1.51 SUVR). Means and 2 SDs from young controls resulted in a lower threshold (1.33 SUVR) that did not agree with the other methods and labeled most elderly individuals as Aβ-positive. <b>Conclusion:</b> Good convergence was obtained among several methods for determining an optimal cutoff for <sup>18</sup>F-AZD4694 PET positivity. Despite conceptual and analytic idiosyncrasies linked with dichotomization of continuous variables, an <sup>18</sup>F-AZD4694 threshold of 1.55 SUVR had reliable discriminative accuracy. Although clinical use of amyloid PET is currently by visual inspection of scans, quantitative thresholds may be helpful to arbitrate disagreement among raters or in borderline cases.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".