A multicenter comparison of [18F]flortaucipir, [18F]RO948, and [18F]MK6240 tau PET tracers to detect a common target ROI for differential diagnosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose This study aims to determine whether comparable target regions of interest (ROIs) and cut-offs can be used across [ 18 F]flortaucipir, [ 18 F]RO948, and [ 18 F]MK6240 tau positron emission tomography (PET) tracers for differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia vs either cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals or non-AD neurodegenerative diseases. Methods A total of 1755 participants underwent tau PET using either [ 18 F]flortaucipir ( n = 975), [ 18 F]RO948 ( n = 493), or [ 18 F]MK6240 ( n = 287). SUVR values were calculated across four theory-driven ROIs and several tracer-specific data-driven (hierarchical clustering) regions of interest (ROIs). Diagnostic performance and cut-offs for ROIs were determined using receiver operating characteristic analyses and the Youden index, respectively. Results Comparable diagnostic performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) was observed between theory- and data-driven ROIs. The theory-defined temporal meta-ROI generally performed very well for all three tracers (AUCs: 0.926–0.996). An SUVR value of approximately 1.35 was a common threshold when using this ROI. Conclusion The temporal meta-ROI can be used for differential diagnosis of dementia patients with [ 18 F]flortaucipir, [ 18 F]RO948, and [ 18 F]MK6240 tau PET with high accuracy, and that using very similar cut-offs of around 1.35 SUVR. This ROI/SUVR cut-off can also be applied across tracers to define tau positivity.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it