MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417297532 · doi:10.1162/imag.a.1053

Fully individualized models for cross-sectional and longitudinal network-based tau spread

2025· article· en· W4417297532 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christopher Brown, Sandhitsu R. Das, John A. Detre, Ilya M. Nasrallah, Paul A. Yushkevich, Corey T. McMillan, S. J. Wolk

Bibliographic record

VenueImaging Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAvid RadiopharmaceuticalsNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationPfizerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaPennsylvania Department of HealthAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeMeso Scale DiagnosticsNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsConnectomeTau pathologyPredictive powerPositron emission tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Heterogeneity in regional tau burden limits evaluation of disease progression using one-size-fits-all approaches. Prior work using tau positron emission tomography (PET) has highlighted the important role of connectivity to epicenters of tau pathology in explaining this heterogeneity. However, previous studies using population-based epicenters or connectomes fall short of a fully individualized approach to predicting regional tau burden. We use diffusion MRI-derived structural connectomes to assess the prediction of regional tau burden using distance along individual structural connectomes from individualized epicenters of tau pathology both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Fully individualized models of connectivity and epicenters outperformed models using either population-based connectomes or epicenters in explanation of cross-sectional and longitudinal regional tau burden, improved prediction in validation datasets, and produced stronger single-subject level prediction. Together, these findings demonstrate the power of a fully individualized approach to explain regional tau heterogeneity and provide the strongest in vivo evidence to date for network-based spread of tau pathology.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImaging NeuroscienceSame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207