Criterion Validation of Tau PET Staging Schemes in Relation to Cognitive Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utilization of NIA-AA Research Framework requires dichotomization of tau pathology. However, due to the novelty of tau-PET imaging, there is no consensus on methods to categorize scans into "positive" or "negative" (T+ or T-). In response, some tau topographical pathologic staging schemes have been developed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study is to establish criterion validity to support these recently-developed staging schemes. METHODS: Tau-PET data from 465 participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (aged 55 to 90) were classified as T+ or T- using decision rules for the Temporal-Occipital Classification (TOC), Simplified TOC (STOC), and Lobar Classification (LC) tau pathologic schemes of Schwarz, and Chen staging scheme. Subsequent dichotomization was analyzed in comparison to memory and learning slope performances, and diagnostic accuracy using actuarial diagnostic methods. RESULTS: Tau positivity was associated with worse cognitive performance across all staging schemes. Cognitive measures were nearly all categorized as having "fair" sensitivity at classifying tau status using TOC, STOC, and LC schemes. Results were comparable between Schwarz schemes, though ease of use and better data fit preferred the STOC and LC schemes. While some evidence was supportive for Chen's scheme, validity lagged behind others-likely due to elevated false positive rates. CONCLUSIONS: Tau-PET staging schemes appear to be valuable for Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, tracking, and screening for clinical trials. Their validation provides support as options for tau pathologic dichotomization, as necessary for use of NIA-AA Research Framework. Future research should consider other staging schemes and validation with other outcome benchmarks.
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 | 0.070 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".