MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390194157 · doi:10.1002/alz.080757

[18F]AV45 standardized uptake value ratio harmonization using ComBat in multi‐center cross‐sectional Alzheimer’s studies

2023· article· en· W4390194157 on OpenAlexaff
Tahnia Nazneen, Stijn Servaes, Seyyed Ali Hosseini, Cécile Tissot, Nesrine Rahmouni, Joseph Therriault, Arthur C. Macedo, Dana Tudorascu, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroimagingPositron emission tomographyLogistic regressionNeuroradiologyNuclear medicineHarmonizationMedicineSmoothingArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer scienceNeurologyComputer visionInternal medicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background [18F]AV45 (florbetapir) based Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of brain amyloid load is one of the core biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, with the rise in the trend of combining data from multicenter studies, the need to correct substantial technical variability associated with image intensity scale due to multi‐center effect continues to rise. While smoothing methods remove small variability, data‐driven feature harmonization methods can adjust for scanner settings and patient motion without over‐blurring the scans. Here we aimed to investigate the effect of ComBat harmonization on multi‐site florbetapir studies to reduce variance across diagnosis groups. Method We assessed 163 scans from the Alzheimer’s disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI3) database. These scans were acquired from 14 different sites. T1‐weighted MRI images were processed using the ADNI pipeline. PET images had 20 min (4×5min frames) acquisition at 50‐70 min post‐injection of 370 MBq (10.0 mCi) ± 10% florbetapir. Raw PET images from all sites were downloaded for quality control at the University of Michigan where the rest of the preprocessing took place using ADNI guidelines. These preprocessed scans were then used to extract SUVR maps using the cerebellar gray matter as the reference region. Based on the literature, the global SUVR for each subject was estimated from the averaged frontal, parietal, temporal, and cingulate cortices. ComBat harmonization was then performed using multicenter data, preserving diagnosis group as the covariate. A paired t‐test and logistic regression were performed to analyze the effect of the harmonization method on the SUVR. Result A paired t‐test confirms the significant difference between the pre‐and post‐ComBat SUVR, especially for AD samples. Although the variance only decreases by 7.1% for CN as opposed to 26.9% (MCI) and 55.4% (AD), this may be explained by the large variance in the age in the sample as well as the possibility of amyloid positive individuals in the CN population. The logistic regression shows an accuracy of 87.9% for AD. Conclusion Even though ComBat harmonization significantly reduces the variance in AD and MCI population, more studies need to be performed to check its use across all PET derived features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→