Head‐to‐Head Comparison of Tau and Amyloid Positron Emission Tomography Visual Reads for Differential Diagnosis of Neurodegenerative Disorders: An International, Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: F]Flortaucipir (FTP) tau positron emission tomography (PET) visual reads for distinguishing patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia with fluid biomarker support of Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Participants with FTP-PET, amyloid-PET, and diagnosis of dementia-AD (n = 102), MCI-AD (n = 41), non-AD diseases (n = 76), and controls (n = 20) were included. AD status was determined independent of PET by cerebrospinal fluid or plasma biomarkers. The mean age was 66.9 years, and 44.8% were women. Three readers interpreted scans blindly and independently. Amyloid-PET was classified as positive/negative using tracer-specific criteria. FTP-PET was classified as positive with medial temporal lobe (MTL) binding as the minimum uptake indicating AD tau (tau-MTL+), positive with posterolateral temporal or extratemporal cortical binding in an AD-like pattern (tau-CTX+), or negative. The majority of scan interpretations were used to calculate diagnostic accuracy of visual reads in detecting MCI/dementia with fluid biomarker support for AD (MCI/dementia-AD). RESULTS: Sensitivity of amyloid-PET for MCI/dementia-AD was 95.8% (95% confidence interval 91.1-98.4%), which was comparable to tau-CTX+ 92.3% (86.7-96.1%, p = 0.67) and tau-MTL+ 97.2% (93.0-99.2%, p = 0.27). Specificity of amyloid-PET for biomarker-negative healthy and disease controls was 84.4% (75.5-91.0%), which was like tau-CTX+ 88.5% (80.4-94.1%, p = 0.34), and trended toward being higher than tau-MTL+ 75.0% (65.1-83.3%, p = 0.08). Tau-CTX+ had higher specificity than tau-MTL+ (p = 0.0002), but sensitivity was lower (p = 0.02), driven by decreased sensitivity for MCI-AD (80.5% [65.1-91.2] vs. 95.1% [83.5-99.4], p = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: Amyloid- and tau-PET visual reads have similar sensitivity/specificity for detecting AD in cognitively impaired patients. Visual tau-PET interpretations requiring cortical binding outside MTL increase specificity, but lower sensitivity for MCI-AD. ANN NEUROL 2024;96:476-487.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".