Effect of temporal meta‐ROI and Braak1&2 ROI on the dissociation between plasma pTau181 and PET statuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Tau is usually assessed through cerebrospinal fluid or Positron Emission Tomography (PET). However, those methods are expensive and not readily available. Research is now focusing on cost‐effective blood‐based biomarkers to assess Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathophysiologies. A novel immunoassay for plasma pTau181 has been created, and even though there are strong associations between plasma pTau181 and PET, no study has yet investigated which cortical area better reflects plasma tau. Method We assessed 269 individuals from the TRIAD cohort (164 CU, 60 MCI and 45 AD) that underwent plasma pTau181 assessment, [18F]MK6240 tau‐PET scan, [18F]AZD4694 amyloid‐PET scan to assess their amyloid‐b (Ab) status, an MRI and a neuropsychological evaluation. We conducted statistical analyses using R, first to calculate the threshold values for positivity in both tau assessing methods and to make comparisons between the groups. SUVR values for [18F]MK6240 were either based on Braak1 SUVR or temporal meta‐ROI SUVR. Result Using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, we established that the cut‐off for positivity for plasma pTau181 was 11.1060 pg/mL. When using Braak1 mask, the cut‐off for positivity was 1.040 SUVR (B1+/‐), while with temporal meta‐ROI it was 1.1827 (TMR+/‐). In both cases, we observed a majority of concordant individuals. However, we obtained 87 discordant individuals in the plasma/TMR, mostly plasma+/TMR‐, and 78 in the plasma/B1 analyses, mostly plasma‐/B1+ (Figure 1). Concomitant status of plasma/TMR was usually accompanied by a similar Ab status. However, in the Braak1 analyses, Ab status seemed to closely follow the PET status (Figure 2). Conclusion The cut‐off values for positivity using Braak1 mask is significantly smaller than when using temporal meta‐ROI. Using the temporal meta‐ROI mask, we had more discrepant individuals that were plasma+/TMR‐, with plasma‐/TMR+ individuals close to the threshold values. It was accurate at predicting negative biomarker statuses in CU participants, and positive in AD participants. Conversely, we had more plasma‐/B1+ individuals when using Braak1 mask, with values more spread around the plot. Due to low threshold values, portion of CU and MCI individuals were categorized as positive to both biomarkers. Finally, B1 status seemed to follow closely the Ab levels. Plasma pTau181 thus seems to reflect better temporal meta‐ROI tau.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".