Exploratory Assessment of K-means Clustering to Classify 18F-Flutemetamol Brain PET as Positive or Negative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: We evaluated K-means clustering to classify amyloid brain PETs as positive or negative. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-six participants (31 men, 35 women; age range, 52-81 years) were recruited through a multicenter observational study: 19 cognitively normal, 25 mild cognitive impairment, and 22 dementia (11 Alzheimer disease, 3 subcortical vascular cognitive impairment, and 8 Parkinson-Lewy Body spectrum disorder). As part of the neurocognitive and imaging evaluation, each participant had an 18F-flutemetamol (Vizamyl, GE Healthcare) brain PET. All studies were processed using Cortex ID software (General Electric Company, Boston, MA) to calculate SUV ratios in 19 regions of interest and clinically interpreted by 2 dual-certified radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, using MIM software (MIM Software Inc, Cleveland, OH), blinded to the quantitative analysis, with final interpretation based on consensus. K-means clustering was retrospectively used to classify the studies from the quantitative data. RESULTS: Based on clinical interpretation, 46 brain PETs were negative and 20 were positive for amyloid deposition. Of 19 cognitively normal participants, 1 (5%) had a positive 18F-flutemetamol brain PET. Of 25 participants with mild cognitive impairment, 9 (36%) had a positive 18F-flutemetamol brain PET. Of 22 participants with dementia, 10 (45%) had a positive 18F-flutemetamol brain PET; 7 of 11 participants with Alzheimer disease (64%), 1 of 3 participants with vascular cognitive impairment (33%), and 2 of 8 participants with Parkinson-Lewy Body spectrum disorder (25%) had a positive 18F-flutemetamol brain PET. Using clinical interpretation as the criterion standard, K-means clustering (K = 2) gave sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 98%, and accuracy of 97%. CONCLUSIONS: K-means clustering may be a powerful algorithm for classifying amyloid brain PET.
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 | 0.034 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".