Operationalizing the centiloid scale for [<sup>18</sup>F]florbetapir PET studies on PET/MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Centiloid scale aims to harmonize amyloid beta (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) measures across different analysis methods. As Centiloids were created using PET/computerized tomography (CT) data and are influenced by scanner differences, we investigated the Centiloid transformation with data from Insight 46 acquired with PET/magnetic resonanceimaging (MRI). METHODS: We transformed standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) from 432 florbetapir PET/MRI scans processed using whole cerebellum (WC) and white matter (WM) references, with and without partial volume correction. Gaussian-mixture-modelling-derived cutpoints for Aβ PET positivity were converted. RESULTS: The Centiloid cutpoint was 14.2 for WC SUVRs. The relationship between WM and WC uptake differed between the calibration and testing datasets, producing implausibly low WM-based Centiloids. Linear adjustment produced a WM-based cutpoint of 18.1. DISCUSSION: Transformation of PET/MRI florbetapir data to Centiloids is valid. However, further understanding of the effects of acquisition or biological factors on the transformation using a WM reference is needed. HIGHLIGHTS: Centiloid conversion of amyloid beta positron emission tomography (PET) data aims to standardize results.Centiloid values can be influenced by differences in acquisition.We converted florbetapir PET/magnetic resonance imaging data from a large birth cohort.Whole cerebellum referenced values could be reliably transformed to Centiloids.White matter referenced values may be less generalizable between datasets.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".