Quantitative analysis of regional distribution of tau pathology with 11C-PBB3-PET in a clinical setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The recent developments of tau-positron emission tomography (tau-PET) enable in vivo assessment of neuropathological tau aggregates. Among the tau-specific tracers, the application of 11C-pyridinyl-butadienyl-benzothiazole 3 (11C-PBB3) in PET shows high sensitivity to Alzheimer disease (AD)-related tau deposition. The current study investigates the regional tau load in patients within the AD continuum, biomarker-negative individuals (BN) and patients with suspected non-AD pathophysiology (SNAP) using 11C-PBB3-PET. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 23 memory clinic outpatients with recent decline of episodic memory were examined using 11C-PBB3-PET. Pittsburg compound B (11C-PIB) PET was available for 17, 18F-flurodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET for 16, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) protein levels for 11 patients. CSF biomarkers were considered abnormal based on Aβ42 (< 600 ng/L) and t-tau (> 450 ng/L). The PET biomarkers were classified as positive or negative using statistical parametric mapping (SPM) analysis and visual assessment. Using the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) scheme, patients were grouped as within the AD continuum, SNAP, and BN based on amyloid and neurodegeneration status. The 11C-PBB3 load detected by PET was compared among the groups using both atlas-based and voxel-wise analyses. RESULTS: Seven patients were identified as within the AD continuum, 10 SNAP and 6 BN. In voxel-wise analysis, significantly higher 11C-PBB3 binding was observed in the AD continuum group compared to the BN patients in the cingulate gyrus, tempo-parieto-occipital junction and frontal lobe. Compared to the SNAP group, patients within the AD continuum had a considerably increased 11C-PBB3 uptake in the posterior cingulate cortex. There was no significant difference between SNAP and BN groups. The atlas-based analysis supported the outcome of the voxel-wise quantification analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that 11C-PBB3-PET can effectively analyze regional tau load and has the potential to differentiate patients in the AD continuum group from the BN and SNAP group.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".