Comparison Between Brain and Cerebellar Autoradiography Using [<sup>18</sup>F]Flortaucipir, [<sup>18</sup>F]MK6240, and [<sup>18</sup>F]PI2620 in Postmortem Human Brain Tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to evaluate the in vitro binding properties of [18F]flortaucipir, 6-(fluoro-18F)-3-(1H-pyrrolo[2,3-c]pyridin-1-yl)isoquinolin-5-amine ([18F]MK6240), and 2-(2-([18F]fluoro)pyridin-4-yl)-9H-pyrrolo[2,3-b:4,5c′]dipyridine ([18F]PI2620) head-to-head in postmortem human brain tissue. Methods: Autoradiography was used to assess uptake of [18F]flortaucipir, [18F]MK6240, and [18F]PI2620 in control and Alzheimer disease (AD) autopsy-confirmed brain tissues. The study focused on the analysis of the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and cerebellum sections in 12 controls and 12 AD cases, as well as whole-brain hemisphere in 1 control and 1 AD sample, for each radiotracer. The binding values of [18F]flortaucipir, [18F]MK6240, and [18F]PI2620 were calculated from regions of interest manually drawn in the prefrontal, hippocampal, and cerebellar cortices. Results: For all 3 radioligands investigated, we observed significant tracer binding differences between control and AD tissues in the whole-brain hemisphere, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus but not in the cerebellar cortex. [18F]MK6240 and [18F]PI2620 had higher effect sizes to differentiate control and AD cases than did [18F]flortaucipir. Bland–Altman analyses revealed strong correlations between [18F]MK6240, [18F]PI2620, and [18F]flortaucipir, with the highest agreement found for [18F]MK6240 versus [18F]PI2620. Conclusion: The 3 radioligands showed comparable diagnostic properties to assess tau aggregates in vitro. Binding to AD brain tissues was higher for [18F]MK6240 and [18F]PI2620 than for [18F]flortaucipir. Additionally, [18F]MK6240 and [18F]PI2620 had greater selectivity, displaying decreased uptake in control brain tissue compared with [18F]flortaucipir. These results might provide insights on ongoing initiatives to create a universal scale for tau imaging studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".