» Articles » PMID: 25356069

Sparse Clustering with Resampling for Subject Classification in PET Amyloid Imaging Studies

Overview
Date 2014 Oct 31
PMID 25356069
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Simulations: A dataset of n=60 observations (3 groups of 20) and p=500 variables was generated for each simulation run; only 50 variables were truly different across groups. The dataset was resampled 20 times, Sparse_kM was applied to each sample and average variable weights were calculated. Probabilities of cluster membership, also called confidence levels, were computed (n=60). Simulations were performed 250 times. The 50 truly different variables were identified by variable weights that were 13-32 times greater than those for the 450 uninformative variables.

Human Data: For the PiB PET dataset, images (ECAT HR+, 10-15 mCi, 90 min) were acquired for 64 cognitively normal subjects (74.1±5.4 yrs). Parametric PiB distribution volume ratio images were generated (Logan method, cerebellum reference) and normalized to the MNI template (SPM8) to produce a dataset of n=64 subjects and p=343,099 voxels/image. The dataset was resampled 10 times and Sparse_kM was applied. An average voxel weight image was computed that indicated cortical areas of greatest interest that included precuneus and frontal cortex; these are key areas linked to early amyloid deposition. Seven of 64 subjects were identified as PiB(+) and 47 as PiB(-) with confidence ≥ 90%, where another subject was PiB(+) at lower confidence (80%) and the other 9 subjects were PiB(-) at confidence in the range of 50-70%. In conclusion, Sparse_kM with resampling can help to establish confidence levels for clustering when p≫n and may be a promising method for revealing informative voxels/spatial patterns that distinguish levels of amyloid load, including that at the transitional amyloid +/- boundary.

Citing Articles

AV-1451 PET imaging of tau pathology in preclinical Alzheimer disease: Defining a summary measure.

Mishra S, Gordon B, Su Y, Christensen J, Friedrichsen K, Jackson K Neuroimage. 2017; 161:171-178.

PMID: 28756238 PMC: 5696044. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.050.


Classification of amyloid-positivity in controls: comparison of visual read and quantitative approaches.

Cohen A, Mowrey W, Weissfeld L, Aizenstein H, McDade E, Mountz J Neuroimage. 2013; 71:207-15.

PMID: 23353602 PMC: 3605888. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.015.

References
1.
Tseng G, Wong W . Tight clustering: a resampling-based approach for identifying stable and tight patterns in data. Biometrics. 2005; 61(1):10-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2005.031032.x. View

2.
Mathis C, Wang Y, Holt D, Huang G, Debnath M, Klunk W . Synthesis and evaluation of 11C-labeled 6-substituted 2-arylbenzothiazoles as amyloid imaging agents. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(13):2740-54. DOI: 10.1021/jm030026b. View

3.
Klunk W, Engler H, Nordberg A, Bacskai B, Wang Y, Price J . Imaging the pathology of Alzheimer's disease: amyloid-imaging with positron emission tomography. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2004; 13(4):781-9, ix. DOI: 10.1016/s1052-5149(03)00092-3. View

4.
Aizenstein H, Nebes R, Saxton J, Price J, Mathis C, Tsopelas N . Frequent amyloid deposition without significant cognitive impairment among the elderly. Arch Neurol. 2008; 65(11):1509-17. PMC: 2636844. DOI: 10.1001/archneur.65.11.1509. View

5.
Mormino E, Brandel M, Madison C, Rabinovici G, Marks S, Baker S . Not quite PIB-positive, not quite PIB-negative: slight PIB elevations in elderly normal control subjects are biologically relevant. Neuroimage. 2011; 59(2):1152-60. PMC: 3230690. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.098. View