MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111448378 · doi:10.1002/alz.045584

[<sup>18</sup>F]MK‐6240 depicts early and late Braak stages of neurofibrillary tangles in preclinical and symptomatic subjects

2020· article· en· W3111448378 on OpenAlexaff
Tharick A. Pascoal, Joseph Therriault, Andréa Lessa Benedet, Mélissa Savard, Firoza Z Lussier, Mira Chamoun, Cécile Tissot, Muhammad Naveed Iqbal Qureshi, Min Su Kang, Sulantha Mathotaarachchi, Jenna Stevenson, Gassan Massarweh, Jean‐Paul Soucy, Serge Gauthier, Pedro Rosa‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill Genome CentreMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaPostmortem studiesFrontotemporal dementiaPathologyPopulationPositron emission tomographyPsychologyAmyloid (mycology)MedicineDiseaseInternal medicineNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Postmortem Braak staging provides an index of disease stage and has therefore been incorporated as a core neuropathological criterion for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Recent in vivo studies using the tau positron emission tomography agent [18F]flortaucipir have shown low sensitivity to detect tau pathology in early Braak stages. These studies report Braak I‐II or greater in ∼20% of cognitively unimpaired elderly, in contrast to the ∼70‐90% of non‐zero Braak stage reported in postmortem studies. Here, we tested whether the novel high‐affinity tau tangles tracer [18F]MK‐6240 (6 fold > [18F]flortaucipir)can better identify individuals in the early stages of tau accumulation. Method To this end, we studied 301 individuals (30 young adults, 138 cognitively unimpaired (CU) elderly, 67 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 54 AD dementia, and 12 frontotemporal dementia (FTD)) with amyloid‐b[18F]NAV4694, tau [18F]MK‐6240, magnetic resonance imaging, and clinical assessments. Results [18F]MK‐6240 discriminated AD from FTD dementia as well as predicted amyloid‐b positivity with the highest area under the curve in Braak I‐II region (=∼95‐100%)(Fig.1 and 2). [18F]MK‐6240 accumulation hierarchically followed the 6 Braak stages (Fig.3)in 98% of our population (Fig.4).91% of the elderly amyloid‐b positive and 46% of the elderly amyloid‐b negative displayed tau deposition, at least in the transentorhinal cortex (Braak I)(Fig.4). Cognition and amyloid‐b status explained most of the Braak stages variance (P<0.0001, R2=0.75). Tau deposition solely in the transentorhinal cortex was associated with an elevated prevalence of amyloid‐b, neurodegeneration, and cognitive impairment (P<0.0001). No single region‐of‐interest accurately segregated individuals into the 6 Braak stages (Fig.5). However, classification decision tree analysis suggested that a composite of transentorhinal, entorhinal, and hippocampal cortices(Braak I‐II) was the region‐of‐interest that best represented [18F]MK‐6240Braak stages (capacity of a region’ SUVR cutoff segregating individuals in 7 levels (Braak 0‐VI)) (accuracy=86.2%)(Fig.6). Conclusion Our results highlight that the hierarchical 6‐stage Braak model using [18F]MK‐6240 provides a robust index of early and late tau accumulation as well as disease stages in preclinical and symptomatic individuals. Tau positron emission tomography Braak staging using high‐affinity tracers has the potential to be incorporated in the diagnosis of living patients with AD.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207