Exploring the effects of using multiple different cerebellar reference regions to improve tau‐PET harmonization ‐ The HEAD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Tau‐PET tracers have been used to diagnose and stage Alzheimer’s disease. However, different tau tracers present distinct patterns of binding throughout the brain, challenging the harmonization of their results. We hypothesize that the choice of a reference region can impact the harmonization of the tau‐PET standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR). In this context, we aimed to explore how different cerebellar reference regions impact the association between [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK‐6240 SUVR values. Method We studied 185 individuals across the aging and AD spectrum with head‐to‐head Flortaucipir and MK‐6240 tau PET (HEAD Study). SUVRs were processed to a common 8mm FWHM using 15 different reference regions defined in the spatially unbiased atlas template of the cerebellum (SUIT) (Diedrichsen, 2009). Regression models investigated the association between Flortaucipir and MK‐6240 using multiple combinations of reference regions. R2 statistic was used to estimate goodness‐of‐fitting. Result 225 combinations of associations Flortaucipir and MK‐6240 SUVR were tested, where the SUVRs are not necessarily quantified using the same reference region. Figure 1 presents the top 25 strongest and 25 weakest associations, ordered based on the coefficient of determination (R²). Flortaucipir and MK‐6240 exhibited the most robust associations when the inferior cerebellar gray matter or Crus I were employed for SUVR determination (R2 = 0.89, Figure 1‐2). Conversely, combinations incorporating the fastigial region consistently yielded weaker associations between the two tracers (R2<0.70, Figure 1‐2). Conclusion Interestingly, we showed that the inferior cerebellum, when used for both tracers, serves as a robust reference region for determining the most similar SUVRs for Flortaucipir and MK‐6240. Notably, these two regions have been commonly utilized in previous studies involving these tau tracers. Our results imply that the inferior cerebellum could be the optimal reference region for research aimed at harmonizing tau PET tracers using statistical scales.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".