MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945726401 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6316222

Kinetic evaluation and assessment of longitudinal changes in reference region and extracerebral [<sup>18</sup>F]MK-6240 PET uptake

2022· other· en· W6945726401 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPonsWhite matterKinetic energyKineticsLongitudinal studyReference values

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[<sup>18</sup>F]MK-6240 meningeal/extracerebral off-target binding may impact tau quantification. We examined the kinetics and longitudinal changes of extracerebral and reference regions. [<sup>18</sup>F]MK-6240 PET was performed in 24 cognitively-normal and eight cognitively-impaired subjects, with arterial samples in 13 subjects. Follow-up scans at 6.1 ± 0.5 (n = 25) and 13.3 ± 0.9 (n = 16) months were acquired. Extracerebral and reference region (cerebellar gray matter (CerGM)-based, cerebral white matter (WM), pons) uptake were evaluated using standardized uptake values (SUV<sub>90-110</sub>), spectral analysis, and distribution volume. Longitudinal changes in SUV<sub>90-110</sub> were examined. The impact of reference region on target region outcomes, partial volume correction (PVC) and regional erosion were evaluated. Eroded WM and pons showed lower variability, lower extracerebral contamination, and lower longitudinal changes than CerGM-based regions. CerGM-based regions resulted larger cross-sectional effect sizes for group differentiation. Extracerebral signal was high in 50% of subjects and exhibited irreversible kinetics and nonsignificant longitudinal changes over one-year but was highly variable at subject-level. PVC resulted in higher variability in reference region uptake and longitudinal changes. Our results suggest that eroded CerGM may be preferred for cross-sectional, whilst eroded WM or pons may be preferred for longitudinal [<sup>18</sup>F]MK-6240 studies. For CerGM, erosion was necessary (preferred over PVC) to address the heterogenous nature of extracerebral signal.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207