Combining PET with MRI to improve predictions of progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease: an exploratory radiomic analysis study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to explore the potential of a combination of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to improve predictions of conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The predictive performances and specific associated biomarkers of these imaging techniques used alone (single-modality imaging) and in combination (dual-modality imaging) were compared. Methods: This study enrolled 377 patients with MCI and 94 healthy control participants from 2 medical centers. Enrolment was based on the patients’ brain MRI and PET images. Radiomic analysis was performed to evaluate the predictive performance of dual-modality 18F-FDG PET and MRI scans. Regions of interest (ROIs) were determined using an a priori brain atlas. Radiomic features in these ROIs were extracted from the MRI and 18F-FDG PET scan data. These features were either concatenated or used separately to select features and construct Cox regression models for prediction in each modality. Harrell’s concordance index (C-index) was then used to assess the predictive accuracies of the resulting models, and correlations between the MRI and 18F-FDG PET features were evaluated. Results: The C-indices for the two test datasets were 0.77 and 0.80 for dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/MRI, 0.75 and 0.73 for single-modality 18F-FDG PET, and 0.74 and 0.76 for single-modality MRI. In addition, there was a significant correlation between the crucial image signatures of the different modalities. Conclusions: These results indicate the value of imaging features in monitoring the progress of MCI in populations at high risk of developing AD. However, the incremental benefit of combining 18F-FDG PET and MRI is limited, and radiomic analysis of a single modality may yield acceptable predictive results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".