MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405005148 · doi:10.21037/qims-24-1100

Voxel-based evaluation for [18F] Florbetaben brain β-amyloid positron emission tomography of healthy control, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease

2024· article· en· W4405005148 on OpenAlexaff
Tse-Hao Lee, Yuh‐Feng Wang, Nan‐Jing Peng, Syu‐Jyun Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Science and Technology Council
KeywordsPositron emission tomographyVoxelCognitive impairmentMedicineβ amyloidDiseaseAmyloid (mycology)NeurosciencePathologyAlzheimer's diseaseNuclear medicinePsychologyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) scans are commonly used to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease (AD) by detecting β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition in the cortex; however, brain amyloid plaque load (BAPL) scores based on the visual interpretation of experts are highly subjective. In the current retrospective study, voxel-based processing of [18F] Florbetaben ([18F] FBB) Aβ PET scans was used to compare images from patients with AD, patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy controls (HCs). The aim of our study was to highlight the gray matter voxels that were higher uptake than white matter and perform group comparison of the numbers of these voxels among AD, MCI and HC subjects. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study investigating Aβ PET of AD, MCI and HC subjects from the Global Alzheimer’s Association Information Network (GAAIN) database and from Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TVGH) between October 2019 and December 2021. The determination of diagnosis (AD, MCI and HC) from GAAIN database was referred from the notes of this database and that from TVGH was referred from the medical records. Aβ PET scans were processed using statistical parametric mapping software. This analysis identified gray matter voxels presenting [18F] FBB uptake intensity exceeding 98% of the maximal uptake intensity in white matter (i.e., positive gray matter voxels). Comparison of numbers of positive gray matter voxels among AD, MCI and HC subjects was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Kruskal-Wallis) test. Results: Whole brain observations revealed significant differences between AD patients, MCI patients, and elderly HC subjects in terms of the number of positive gray matter voxels (P=0.0281). In addition, more number of positive gray matter voxels were observed in AD patients than in elderly HC subjects (P=0.036). Most of the elderly HC subjects exhibited no positive gray matter voxels. Conclusions: Our preliminary analysis of [18F] FBB Aβ PET scans demonstrates proof-of-concept, suggesting that positive gray matter voxels could be used to differentiate among AD, MCI, and HC subjects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuantitative Imaging in Medicine and SurgerySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207