Data‐driven decomposition and staging of flortaucipir uptake in Alzheimer's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Previous approaches pursuing in vivo staging of tau pathology in Alzheimer's disease (AD) have typically relied on neuropathologically defined criteria. In using predefined systems, these studies may miss spatial deposition patterns which are informative of disease progression. METHODS: We selected discovery (n = 418) and replication (n = 132) cohorts with flortaucipir imaging. Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) was applied to learn tau covariance patterns and develop a tau staging system. Flortaucipir components were also validated by comparison with amyloid burden, gray matter loss, and the expression of AD-related genes. RESULTS: We found eight flortaucipir covariance patterns which were reproducible and overlapped with relevant gene expression maps. Tau stages were associated with AD severity as indexed by dementia status and neuropsychological performance. Comparisons of flortaucipir uptake with amyloid and atrophy also supported our model of tau progression. DISCUSSION: Data-driven decomposition of flortaucipir uptake provides a novel framework for tau staging which complements existing systems. HIGHLIGHTS: NMF reveals patterns of tau deposition in AD. Data-driven staging of flortaucipir tracks AD severity. Learned flortaucipir patterns overlap with AD-related gene expression.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".