MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403823127 · doi:10.1162/imag_a_00369

MRI-free processing of tau PET images for early detection

2024· article· en· W4403823127 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mackenzie Carlson, Viktorija Smith, Emily Johns, Christina B. Young, Hillary Vossler, Tyler J. Ward, Theresa M. Harrison, Duygu Tosun, Timothy J. Hohman, Susan Landau, Elizabeth C. Mormino

Bibliographic record

VenueImaging Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICONorthern California Institute for Research and EducationBioClinicaAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyBiogenEisaiNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsComputer visionPet imagingComputer scienceNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceMedicinePositron emission tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tau positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is becoming increasingly common to assess in vivo tau burden. MR images are often acquired to assist with processing of PET data, including for region-of-interest definitions in native space and for normalization to template space. However, in the real-world setting, corresponding MRIs may not be available and PET processing may require MRI-free pipelines. This is particularly important and challenging as the field moves towards early detection among clinically unimpaired (CU) individuals where changes in tau PET signal are expected to be subtle. We used two independent [18F]Flortaucipir tau PET datasets to evaluate whether MRI-free PET processing can detect subtle tau PET uptake differences in Amyloid+ (A+) CU individuals (preclinical AD) versus A-. Standardized Uptake Value Ratios (SUVRs) from MRI-free compared to MRI-based methods were evaluated using linear regression and linear mixed-effects regression models. Effect size differences between A+/- CU groups in MRI-free processed cross-sectional and longitudinal tau PET SUVRs were compared to differences quantified through MRI-based processing. Regional MRI-free SUVRs were highly correlated with MRI-based SUVRs within CU individuals (average ICC = 0.90 for ADNI CU and 0.81 for A4 CU). MRI-free and MRI-based pipelines resulted in similar estimates of cross-sectional and longitudinal differences between A- and A+ CU, even in early focal regions within the medial temporal lobe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImaging NeuroscienceSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207