Imaging of tau pathology in patients with non-Alzheimer’s disease tauopathies by [11C]PBB3-PET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims:[11C]PBB3 has been recently developed as a tau imaging PET ligand that has high affinity and selectivity for tau deposits in the preclinical studies. Our initial PET study with [11C]PBB3 demonstrated high [11C]PBB3 binding in the cerebral cortex including medial temporal lobes in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared with age-matched controls. The aim of the present study is to test the hypothesis that [11C]PBB3 PET is a in vivo imaging method for detecting tau lesions in non-AD tauopathies such as progressive supranuclar palsy (PSP) and corticobasal degeneration (CBD). Methods:Ten patients with PSP, five patients with corticobasal syndrome (CBS), and 18 age-matched healthy controls (HCs) participated in this study. Sequential PET scans were performed for 70 min following intravenous injection of [11C]PBB3. PET images were anatomically normalized to the Montreal Neurological Institute space using T1 weighted MRI, and standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) at 30-50 min was calculated using the cerebellar cortex as reference region. One-way ANOVA test was performed among PSP, CBS patients, and HCs using statistical parametric mapping software (SPM 8). Statistical threshold was set to 0.01 with extent threshold of 50 voxels without correction for multiple comparisons. Cerebral beta-amyloid depositions were also estimated using SUVR images at 50-70 min after [11C]Pittsburgh compound B injection in all patients and HCs. Results:All patients and HCs were PIB-negative except one PIB-positive patient with CBS and one HC. SPM analysis showed high [11C]PBB3 binding in globus pallidus, putamen, thalamus, subthalamus, midbrain, pons, and peri-rolandic areas in PSP patients compared with HCs. PIB-negative CBS patients (n=4) showed high [11C]PBB3 binding in peri-rolandic areas, supplementary motor area, subthalamus, and midbrain compared with HCs. SUVR images of one PIB-positive patient with CBS showed high [11C]PBB3 binding in the whole cerebral cortex including limbic cortex like advanced AD patients. Conclusions:The distribution of [11C]PBB3 binding in the patients was in accord with the known distribution of tau pathology in PSP and CBD. The present study supports the utility of [11C]PBB3-PET for detecting tau deposition in non-AD tauopathies including PSP and CBD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".