Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2023 Jan 24;5(2):fcad015. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcad015

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PMC Copyright notice

Pre-screening with an absolute risk threshold approach. This figure shows the effect of different thresholds for absolute risk (i.e. raw predicted probability from the logistic regression model) on trial recruitment. Panel A shows the Aβ PET + rate as a function of the absolute risk (i.e. the lower threshold, so a 0% risk cutoff means everyone gets invited for a PET scan). Panel B shows the trade-off between the total number of tests (on log10 scale) needed in the pre-screening phase (i.e. plasma) versus the screening phase (i.e. PET) for a trial with 500 PET + CU participants. Panel C shows the total cost savings by pre-screening across different cost ratios. For example, a trial with absolute risk threshold of 25% would have an Aβ PET + rate of 58.0% and a threshold of 75% would have an Aβ PET + rate of 80.3%. The expected Aβ PET + rate with no pre-screening is 28.6%.