Creating Universal Tau PET Scale (Uniτ) Parametric Images – The HEAD Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The HEAD study focuses on collecting an extensive dataset from various tau‐PET tracers, aiming to establish robust anchor values, which are essential for harmonizing tau‐PET measurements. Here, we aim to showcase the capability of converting 3D tau‐PET images into a common scale using the Universal Tau‐PET Scale, Uniτ (tau), and to use these 3D images to subsequently obtain ROIs as needed. Methods We assessed 185 individuals across the aging and AD spectrum from the HEAD study, with [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK‐6240 tau‐PET tracers. Tau‐PET SUVR images were standardized to a common 8mm FWHM, using the inferior cerebellar gray matter as the reference region. We generated Uniτ Tau‐PET 3D images using a single formula based on Meta‐temporal parameters in two steps: first, within‐tracer anchoring based on young (<25 years) and cognitively impaired individuals; second, between‐tracer anchoring using a piecewise transformation from [18F]Flortaucipir to [18F]MK‐6240, with smoothing at the piecewise inflection point. Subsequently, we extracted mean Uniτ values from these 3D images for key ROIs, including meta‐temporal, mesial, temporo‐parietal, frontal, and Braak stages III‐VI. Finally, we correlated Uniτ values across ROIs between the two tracers to evaluate the accuracy of estimates from the voxel‐wise transformation. Results The original SUVR images present large differences between the two tau‐PET tracers (Figure 1). However, upon applying the Uniτ piecewise transformation with smoothing to all brain voxels, we were able to reasonably harmonize these images to the Uniτ scale, substantially reducing visual variability. Notably, the mean Uniτ values for the ROIs extracted from these harmonized 3D tau‐PET brain images demonstrated a high level of association between the two tracers (Figure 2). Furthermore, estimates generated from ROIs or extracted from our 3D parametric Uniτ model yielded identical estimates (Figure 3). Conclusion The strong associations between tracers after directly harmonizing 3D images to Uniτ scale using the piecewise transformation with smoothing, underscore the effectiveness of the proposed method. This approach provides a reliable and standardized way to compare tau‐PET data across different tracers. Our results indicate the feasibility of harmonizing 3D tau‐PET images without relying on pre‐established ROIs, overcoming the limitation of restricting the analysis to only few brain regions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".