MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406210358 · doi:10.1002/alz.092862

Voxel‐wise comparison of [<sup>18</sup>F]MK6240 and [<sup>18</sup>F]Flortaucipir for the diagnosis of individuals across the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum – the HEAD study

2024· article· en· W4406210358 on OpenAlexaff
Bruna Bellaver, Guilherme Povala, Guilherme Bauer‐Negrini, Firoza Z Lussier, Lívia Amaral, Pâmela C.L. Ferreira, Val J. Lowe, David N. Soleimani‐Meigooni, Hwamee Oh, Dana Tudorascu, William J. Jagust, William E. Klunk, Belén Pascual, Brian A. Gordon, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Suzanne L. Baker, Tharick A. Pascoal

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaVoxelReceiver operating characteristicNuclear medicineArea under the curveAlzheimer's diseaseMedicinePathologyPsychologyDiseaseInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In vivo studies using the tau PET tracers have shown high performance for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease dementia and patterns of tracer uptake that resemble those observed in post‐mortem studies. However, tau tracers present distinct patterns of binding that might influence their performance in detecting AD pathology. In a head‐to‐head study, we investigated the performance of [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir for the diagnosis of AD. Method We assessed 132 individuals from the HEAD study (58 CU Aβ‐, 15 CU Aβ+, 14 MCI Aβ‐, 32 MCI Aβ+ and 13 AD dementia) with Aβ‐PET, [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir. Voxel‐wise receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) of the two tau tracers were used to contrast groups provided the area under the curve (AUC) for disease diagnosis or biomarkers positivity. Result The brain maps showed numerically higher and more spread AUC for [18F]Flortaucipir to discriminate CU Aβ‐ from CU Aβ+ (Figure 1A). The difference between tracers’ AUC was greater in Braaks IV and V (Figure 2A), both regions that are not expected to have tau accumulation in CU Aβ+ individuals, reflecting a potential off‐target binding for [18F]Flortaucipir. To differentiate CU Aβ‐ from MCI Aβ+ individuals, [18F]MK6240 presented a numerically higher AUC than [18F]Flortaucipir in Braak I and II and similar AUC in other Braak regions (Figure 1B, 2B). We observed a high performance of [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir in differentiating AD dementia from CU Aβ‐ individuals. However, [18F]MK6240 exhibits a higher AUC than [18F]Flortaucipir in all Braak regions, especially Braak V‐VI (Figure 1C, 2C). Finally, [18F]MK6240 presented higher AUC in all Braak regions to discriminate MCI Aβ‐ from MCI Aβ+ individuals (Figure 1D, 2D). Conclusion Our results indicate that [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir present high accuracy to discriminate AD from CU Aβ‐ individuals. However, [18F]MK6240 presents higher AUC to discriminate AD and MCI Aβ+ from CU Aβ‐ individuals than [18F]Flortaucipir. Together, our head‐to‐head study sheds light on the distinct patterns of binding for Tau‐PET tracers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments→French-language works237,207→