ArticleScientific reports2020
Prediction of amyloid β PET positivity using machine learning in patients with suspected cerebral amyloid angiopathy markers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors and clinical significance of neurodegenerative co-pathologies in symptomatic cerebral small vessel disease.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Prediction of Amyloid β-Positivity with both MRI Parameters and Cognitive Function Using Machine Learning.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Article
- Introducing a gatekeeping system for amyloid status assessment in mild cognitive impairment.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amyloid-β(Aβ) PET positivity in patients with suspected cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA) MRI markers is predictive of a worse cognitive trajectory, and it provides insights into the underlying vascular pathology (CAA vs. hypertensive angiopathy) to facilitate prognostic prediction and appropriate treatment decisions. In this study, we applied two interpretable machine learning algorithms, gradient boosting machine (GBM) and random forest (RF), to predict Aβ PET positivity in patients with CAA MRI markers. In the GBM algorithm, the number of lobar cerebral microbleeds (CMBs), deep CMBs, lacunes, CMBs in dentate nuclei, and age were ranked as the most influential to predict Aβ positivity. In the RF algorithm, the absence of diabetes was additionally chosen. Cut-off values of the above variables predictive of Aβ positivity were as follows: (1) the number of lobar CMBs > 16.4(GBM)/14.3(RF), (2) no deep CMBs(GBM/RF), (3) the number of lacunes > 7.4(GBM/RF), (4) age > 74.3(GBM)/64(RF), (5) no CMBs in dentate nucleus(GBM/RF). The classification performances based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.83 in GBM and 0.80 in RF. Our study demonstrates the utility of interpretable machine learning in the clinical setting by quantifying the relative importance and cutoff values of predictive variables for Aβ positivity in patients with suspected CAA markers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.