Review of Quantitative Methods for the Detection of Alzheimer’s Disease with Positron Emission Tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dementia spectrum is a broad range of disorders with complex diagnosis, pathophysiology, and a limited set of treatment options, where the most common variety is Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Positron emission tomography (PET) has become a valuable tool for the detection of AD; however, following the results of post-mortem studies, AD diagnosis has modest sensitivity and specificity at best. It remains common practice that readings of these images are performed by a physician’s subjective impressions of the spatial pattern of tracer uptake, and so quantitative methods based on established biomarkers have had little penetration into clinical practice. The present study is a review of the data-driven methods available for molecular neuroimaging studies (fluorodeoxyglucose-/amyloid-/tau-PET), with emphasis on the use of machine/deep learning as quantitative tools complementing the specialist in detecting AD. This work is divided into two broad parts. The first covers the epidemiology and pathology of AD, followed by a review of the role of PET imaging and tracers for AD detection. The second presents quantitative methods used in the literature for detecting AD, including the general linear model and statistical parametric mapping, 3D stereotactic surface projection, principal component analysis, scaled subprofile modeling, support vector machines, and neural networks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".