MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406222455 · doi:10.1002/alz.094093

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· W4406222455 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
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaReceiver operating characteristicVoxelNuclear medicineArea under the curveAlzheimer's diseasePathologyMedicineDiseaseInternal 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 Aß‐, 15 CU Aß+, 14 MCI Aß‐, 32 MCI Aß+ and 13 AD dementia) with Aß‐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 Aß‐ from CU Aß+ (Fig.1A). The difference between tracers’ AUC was greater in Braaks IV and V (Fig.2A), both regions that are not expected to have tau accumulation in CU Aß+ individuals, reflecting a potential off‐target binding for [18F]Flortaucipir. To differentiate CU Aß‐ from MCI Aß+ individuals, [18F]MK6240 presented a numerically higher AUC than [18F]Flortaucipir in Braak I and II and similar AUC in other Braak regions (Fig.1B, Fig. 2B). We observed a high performance of [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir in differentiating AD dementia from CU Aß‐ individuals. However, [18F]MK6240 exhibits a higher AUC than [18F]Flortaucipir in all Braak regions, especially Braak V‐VI (Fig.1C, Fig.2C). Finally, [18F]MK6240 presented higher AUC in all Braak regions to discriminate MCI Aß‐ from MCI Aß+ individuals (Fig.1D, Fig.2D). Conclusion Our results indicate that [18F]MK6240 and [18F]Flortaucipir present high accuracy to discriminate AD from CU Aß‐ individuals. However, [18F]MK6240 presents higher AUC to discriminate AD and MCI Aß+ from CU Aß‐ 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.359
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 & DementiaSame topicLanthanide and Transition Metal ComplexesFrench-language works237,207