In vivo quantification of neurofibrillary tangles with [18F]MK-6240
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imaging agents capable of quantifying the brain’s tau aggregates will allow a more precise staging of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The aim of the present study was to examine the in vitro properties as well as the in vivo kinetics, using gold standard methods, of the novel positron emission tomography (PET) tau imaging agent [ 18 F]MK-6240. In vitro properties of [ 18 F]MK-6240 were estimated with autoradiography in postmortem brain tissues of 14 subjects (seven AD patients and seven age-matched controls). In vivo quantification of [ 18 F]MK-6240 binding was performed in 16 subjects (four AD patients, three mild cognitive impairment patients, six healthy elderly individuals, and three healthy young individuals) who underwent 180-min dynamic scans; six subjects had arterial sampling for metabolite correction. Simplified approaches for [ 18 F]MK-6240 quantification were validated using full kinetic modeling with metabolite-corrected arterial input function. All participants also underwent amyloid-PET and structural magnetic resonance imaging. In vitro [ 18 F]MK-6240 uptake was higher in AD patients than in age-matched controls in brain regions expected to contain tangles such as the hippocampus, whereas no difference was found in the cerebellar gray matter. In vivo, [ 18 F]MK-6240 displayed favorable kinetics with rapid brain delivery and washout. The cerebellar gray matter had low binding across individuals, showing potential for use as a reference region. A reversible two-tissue compartment model well described the time–activity curves across individuals and brain regions. Distribution volume ratios using the plasma input and standardized uptake value ratios (SUVRs) calculated after the binding approached equilibrium (90 min) were correlated and higher in mild cognitive impairment or AD dementia patients than in controls. Reliability analysis revealed robust SUVRs calculated from 90 to 110 min, while earlier time points provided inaccurate estimates. This evaluation shows an [ 18 F]MK-6240 distribution in concordance with postmortem studies and that simplified quantitative approaches such as the SUVR offer valid estimates of neurofibrillary tangle load 90 min post injection. [ 18 F]MK-6240 is a promising tau tracer with the potential to be applied in the disease diagnosis and assessment of therapeutic interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".