Profiling and predicting distinct tau progression patterns: An unsupervised data‐driven approach to flortaucipir positron emission tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: How to detect patterns of greater tau burden and accumulation is still an open question. METHODS: An unsupervised data-driven whole-brain pattern analysis of longitudinal tau positron emission tomography (PET) was used first to identify distinct tau accumulation profiles and then to build baseline models predictive of tau-accumulation type. RESULTS: The data-driven analysis of longitudinal flortaucipir PET from studies done by the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, Avid Pharmaceuticals, and Harvard Aging Brain Study (N = 348 cognitively unimpaired, N = 188 mild cognitive impairment, N = 77 dementia), yielded three distinct flortaucipir-progression profiles: stable, moderate accumulator, and fast accumulator. Baseline flortaucipir levels, amyloid beta (Aβ) positivity, and clinical variables, identified moderate and fast accumulators with 81% and 95% positive predictive values, respectively. Screening for fast tau accumulation and Aβ positivity in early Alzheimer's disease, compared to Aβ positivity with variable tau progression profiles, required 46% to 77% lower sample size to achieve 80% power for 30% slowing of clinical decline. DISCUSSION: Predicting tau progression with baseline imaging and clinical markers could allow screening of high-risk individuals most likely to benefit from a specific treatment regimen.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".