MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205868560 · doi:10.1002/alz.055263

Characterizing flortaucipir tau‐PET deposition patterns across the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum: A comparison between regional and whole‐brain approaches

2021· article· en· W4205868560 on OpenAlexaff
Marianne Chapleau

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbnormalityAlzheimer's diseaseCognitive impairmentPsychologyCategorizationNuclear medicineNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicineDiseaseCognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The pattern of tau‐PET deposition might not always follow the classical post‐mortem Braak stages (Vogel et al, 2020). Yet, most current studies use a temporal meta‐ROI to calculate tau‐PET abnormality. We assessed inter‐individual patterns of tau binding across the spectrum of late‐onset Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We computed a score representing the spatial extent uptake of tau‐PET and compared it to a classical temporal meta‐ROI. Method We selected 766 ADNI participants along the AD spectrum (controls [CN], early mild cognitive impairment [eMCI], late MCI [lMCI] and AD patients) who underwent flortaucipir tau‐PET and had an available beta‐amyloid (Aβ)status (Table 1). We fitted 2‐distribution Gaussian mixture‐models to calculate thresholds of liberal and conservative tau retention (50% and 90% probability to be in the high SUVR distribution, respectively) in the classical Braak stages and all 70 FreeSurfer brain regions. Using this categorization, we defined positivity in the different Braak stages (Figure 1A‐C) and individual regions (Figure 1B‐D). We calculated a fine‐grained measure of spatial extent by summing the number of regions showing tau abnormality (Figure 1D and 2A). We also computed a temporal meta‐ROI SUVR (Figure 2B, Jack et al, 2018 regions). Result In Aβ‐positive participants 14% CN, 44% eMCI and 78% lMCI‐AD had elevated SUVRs in Braak stage 1 using the conservative threshold (Figure 1C, yellow). Participants who progressed to subsequent Braak stage(s), defined with conservative thresholds, were positive on all previous stages using a liberal or conservative threshold (Figure 1C yellow and green, 99% of the sample). Only the spatial extent of tau deposition was associated with worse cognition in CN individuals (Figure 3). In AD patients, both greater spatial extent of tau deposition and higher temporal meta‐ROI SUVR were associated with lower cognition, with the spatial extent index showing stronger associations (Figure 3). In AD, further widespread spatial extent and temporal binding was associated with younger age (Figure 4). Conclusion In a typical amnestic cohort of late‐onset AD,the pattern of tau deposition follows the traditional Braak stages. Using a spatial extent index provides stronger results than a temporal‐meta ROI index in detecting associations with cognition.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→