AMYQ: An index to standardize quantitative amyloid load across PET tracers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Positron emission tomography (PET) amyloid quantification methods require magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for spatial registration and a priori reference region to scale the images. Furthermore, different tracers have distinct thresholds for positivity. We propose the AMYQ index, a new measure of amyloid burden, to overcome these limitations. METHODS: We selected 18F-amyloid scans from ADNI and Australian Imaging, Biomarker & Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing (AIBL) with the corresponding T1-MRI. A subset also had neuropathological data. PET images were normalized, and the AMYQ was calculated based on an adaptive template. We compared AMYQ with the Centiloid scale on clinical and neuropathological diagnostic performance. RESULTS: AMYQ was related with amyloid neuropathological burden and had excellent diagnostic performance to discriminate controls from patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.86). AMYQ had a high agreement with the Centiloid scale (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.88) and AUC between 0.94 and 0.99 to discriminate PET positivity when using different Centiloid cutoffs. DISCUSSION: AMYQ is a new MRI-independent index for standardizing and quantifying amyloid load across tracers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".